Judgment SHAM SUNDER, J. 1. Criminal appeal No. 178-SB of 2001, filed by Sukhwinder Singh son of Naranjan Singh and Criminal Appeal No. 323-SB of 2001, filed by Ranjit Singh son of Harmit Singh, Amrik Singh and Bohar Singh sons of Baj Singh, accused (appellants), are directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 25.01.2001, rendered by the Judge, Special Court, Ferozepur, vide which he convicted all the accused, for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as the Act only) and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period of ten years each, and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lac each, and in default of payment of the same, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each, for having been found in possession of 90 ( ninety ) bags, each containing 41 Kgs and 250 Grams poppy husk, without any permit or licence. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 20.04.1993, Sub Inspector Gurdev Singh, along with other police officials, held a picket at the bridge of canal minor, where a secret information was received by him, that the informer had seen a truck, crossing village Jhanda Bagga Purana, in which three persons were sitting on the bags, loaded in the body thereof, and it appeared that it was carrying poppy husk or contraband. At about 2.00 AM, truck bearing No. AS-01- C/1070 came from the side of Jhanda Bagga Purana and the same was stopped. The truck was being driven by accused Sukhwinder Singh, whereas, Ranjit Singh alias Rana, Bohar Singh and Amrik Singh, accused, were sitting on the bags, loaded in the body of the same. The accused were apprehended on suspicion. Efforts were made to join independent witnesses, but none was available. Thereafter, the search of the truck, was conducted, by Gurdev Singh, Sub Inspector, in accordance with the provisions of law, as a result whereof, 90 bags each containing 41 Kgs 250 Grams of poppy husk, were recovered. A sample of 250 grams of poppy husk was taken out of each bag. The remaining poppy husk, was kept in the same bags. The samples and the bags, containing poppy husk, were converted into separate parcels, duly sealed, and taken into possession along with the truck vide separate recovery memo. A sample of 250 grams of poppy husk was taken out of each bag. The remaining poppy husk, was kept in the same bags. The samples and the bags, containing poppy husk, were converted into separate parcels, duly sealed, and taken into possession along with the truck vide separate recovery memo. Registration Certificate of the truck was produced by the accused, which was also taken into possession, vide separate recovery memo. Ruqa was sent to the Police Station, on the basis whereof, the FIR was registered. The accused were arrested. The site plan was prepared. After the completion of investigation, the accused were challaned. 3. On their appearance, in the Court, the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution, were supplied to the accused. Charge under Section 15 of the Act was framed against the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Jaspal Singh, Constable, ( PW-1 ), who took the samples and deposited the same in the office of the Chemical Examiner, Ranjit Singh, ASI (PW2) a witness to the recovery, SHO Darshan Singh, (PW3), before whom the accused, the witnesses and the case property were produced and who verified the investigation and checked the case property and Inspector Gurdev Singh ( PW4 ), the Investigating Officer. Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor for the State, closed the prosecution evidence. 5. The statements of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were recorded. They were put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against them, in the prosecution evidence. They pleaded false implication. The accused examined Raghu Kumar, Clerk, office of the District & Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, DW1, Judge Singh, Head Constable DW2, Nishan Singh, Panchayat Secretary, DW3, Resham Singh, DW4, Harbhajan Singh, DW5 and Baj Singh, DW6. Thereafter, the accused closed their defence evidence. 6. After hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, the Counsel for the accused, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated hereinbefore. 7. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, the instant appeals, were filed by the accusedappellants. 8. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 9. 7. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, the instant appeals, were filed by the accusedappellants. 8. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 9. The Counsel for the appellants, at the very outset, submitted that the prosecution miserably failed to prove that the accused were in conscious possession of the bags, containing poppy husk. They further submitted that the mere fact that Sukhwinder Singh, accused was allegedly driving the truck, whereas the remaining three accused were allegedly sitting on the bags containing poppy husk, did not mean that they were in conscious possession of the same. It may be stated here, that a big haul of poppy husk was being carried in the truck aforesaid, at the dead of night, by all the accused. It could not be said that they were not aware of the contents, contained in those bags. It was not a small quantity of poppy-husk, which was concealed, and, as such, could escape the notice of the accused. Once three accused were found sitting on the bags, containing poppy husk and one accused was found driving the truck, at the dead night, they were proved to be in physical possession and in control over the bags, containing poppy husk. Once the possession of the accused in respect of the contraband was proved, then statutory presumption under Sections 35 and 54 of the Act, started operating against them, that they were in conscious possession thereof. It was for the accused to rebut the statutory presumption referred to above. The accused, however, failed to rebut the same. Once the possession of the accused in respect of the contraband was proved, then statutory presumption under Sections 35 and 54 of the Act, started operating against them, that they were in conscious possession thereof. It was for the accused to rebut the statutory presumption referred to above. The accused, however, failed to rebut the same. Section 54 of the Act ibid, is extracted as under:- "Presumption from possession of illicit articles:- In trials under this Act, it may be presumed, unless and until the contrary is proved, that the accused has committed an offence under this Act in respect of:- a) any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance; b) any opium poppy, cannabis plant or coca plant growing on any land which he has cultivated; c) any apparatus specially designed or any group of utensils specially adopted for the manufacture of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controller substance; or d) any materials which have undergone any process towards the manufacture of a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance, or any residue left of the materials from which any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance has been manufactured, for the possession of which he fails to account satisfactorily." Section 35, which relates to the presumption of culpable mental state, is extracted as under:- "Presumption of culpable mental state:- (1). In any prosecution for an offence under this Act which requires a culpable mental state of the accused, the Court shall presume the existence of such mental state but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution. Explanation:- In this section "culpable mental state includes intention,motive knowledge of a fact and belief in, or reason to believe, a fact. (2). For the purpose of this section, a fact is said to be proved only when the court believes it to exist beyond a reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is established by a preponderance of probability." 10. (2). For the purpose of this section, a fact is said to be proved only when the court believes it to exist beyond a reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is established by a preponderance of probability." 10. From the conjoint reading of the provisions of Sections 54 and 35, referred to hereinbefore, it becomes abundantly clear, that once an accused, is found to be in possession of a contraband, he is presumed to have committed the offence, under the relevant provisions of the Act, until the contrary is proved. According to Section 35 of the Act ibid, the Court shall presume the existence of mental state, for the commission of an offence, and it is for the accused to prove otherwise. In Madan Lal and another v. State of H. P. 2003 SCC (Crl.) 1664 it was held as under:- The word "conscious" means awareness about a particular fact. It is a state of mind which is deliberate or intended. Once possession is established, the person who claims that it was not a conscious possession has to establish it, because how he came to be in possession is within his special knowledge. Section 35 of the Act gives a statutory recognition of this position because of the presumption available in law. Similar is the position in terms of Section 54 where also presumption is available to be drawn from possession of illicit articles." 10-A The facts of Madan Lals case (supra) in brief, were that accused Manjit Singh was driving the Car and the remaining four accused were sitting therein. One steel container (dolu) in a black coloured bag, was recovered, from the said Car, which contained 820 gms. charas. The accused were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court, holding that they were found in conscious possession of charas. The High Court dismissed the appeal. The Apex Court held that the trial Court was right, in coming to the conclusion, that the accused were found in conscious possession of charas, as they had failed to explain, as to how they were travelling in a Car together, which was not a public vehicle. The Apex Court upheld the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused. In Megh Singh v. State of Punjab, 2003 (4) RCR (Criminal) 319 (SC), on 22.2.1993, three persons were found sitting on the gunny bags, containing poppy husk. The Apex Court upheld the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused. In Megh Singh v. State of Punjab, 2003 (4) RCR (Criminal) 319 (SC), on 22.2.1993, three persons were found sitting on the gunny bags, containing poppy husk. The appellant was arrested, while the other two fled. 25 bags containing poppy husk, were found, at the spot, which were seized. The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court, and the appeal filed by him was also dismissed by the High Court. The Apex Court, upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant, therein, observing that he was in conscious possession of the contraband. The word conscious means awareness about a particular fact. It is the state of mind, which is deliberate or intended. It was further held that possession in a given case need not be physical possession, but can be constructive, having power and control over the article, while the person whom physical possession is given holds it subject to that power or control. The accused, in their statements, recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were put specific questions, that when search of the truck, in question, was conducted, 90 bags, containing poppy-husk, were recovered. The accused were also put specific questions that the truck was being driven by Sukhwinder Singh, and the remaining three namely Ranjit Singh, Amrik Singh and Bohar Singh, were sitting on the bags containing poppy husk, lying in the truck. They were, thus, made aware of the fact that they were found in physical possession of and in control over 90 bags, containing poppy-husk. They denied that they were travelling in the said truck. They failed to explain as to how all of them were travelling, in the said truck, at that odd hour of the night, in which 90 bags of poppy husk, were lying. The trial Court, was thus right, in coming to the conclusion, that the accused were in conscious possession of 90 bags of poppy husk, on the basis of cogent, convincing, trust worthy and reliable evidence of Jaspal Singh, Constable ( PW1 ), Ranjit Singh, ASI ( PW2 ), Darshan Singh, SHO ( PW3 ), and Gurdev Singh, Inspector ( PW4). The trial Court was, thus, right in coming to the conclusion, that the evidence of the official witnesses being reliable, was sufficient to record conviction of the accused. The trial Court was, thus, right in coming to the conclusion, that the evidence of the official witnesses being reliable, was sufficient to record conviction of the accused. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 11 The Counsel for the appellants, however, placed reliance on Surjan Singh @ Kala v. State of Punjab 2005 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 897, Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab 2002 (4) RCR (Criminal) 180 (SC), Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab 2005 (4) RCR (Criminal) 300 (P&H) (D.B.), and Harbans Singh v. State of Punjab 2000(4) RCR (Criminal) 288, in support of their contention that the prosecution miserably failed to prove that the accused were found in conscious possession of the bags aforesaid, containing poppyhusk. In Tarsem Singhs case (supra), it was held by a Division Bench of this Court, that the accused was not the owner of the tractor trolley. There was no evidence that he was actually the owner of poppy husk. He was not even driver thereof. In these circumstances, it was held that it could not be said that the accused was exercising the possessory right over the contraband, and, as such, his conscious possession, in respect thereof, was not held to be proved. In Surjan Singhs case (supra), the accused was found sitting in trolley. It was not shown, as to in which way the accused was in possession of narcotic substance. In these circumstances, it was held that mere sitting in a trolley, from which the narcotic substance was eventually recovered did not constitute possession or even custody. In Harbans Singhs case (supra), 140 bags of poppy-husk were recovered from the truck. The driver absconded. Both the accused were sitting in the truck. They were not proved to be the owners or transporters of the bags. It was held that their conscious possession in relation to the contraband, was not proved. They were accordingly acquitted. In Avtar Singhs case (Supra), 16 bags of poppy-husk were recovered from a vehicle. Two accused were found siting on the bags, and one accused was driving the truck. It was held that it was not proved that the accused had custody and control over the bags. They were accordingly acquitted. In Avtar Singhs case (Supra), 16 bags of poppy-husk were recovered from a vehicle. Two accused were found siting on the bags, and one accused was driving the truck. It was held that it was not proved that the accused had custody and control over the bags. However, in Avtar Singhs case ( supra ), it was held that accused could at the most be said to be abettors, but since no charge had been framed for abutment, no conviction could be recorded. Avtar Singhs case ( supra ) was duly noticed and distinguished in Megh Singhs case ( supra ) on account of distinct factual matrix of both the cases. In some of the aforesaid cases, the provisions of Sections 35 and 54 of the Act, were not adverted to. Even in those cases, it was held that the prosecution failed to prove possession of the accused in relation to the contraband. Once the physical or constructive possession or control over the contraband, in relation to an accused, is proved, then onus shifts on to him, under the provisions of Sections 35 and 54 of the Act, to prove, as to under what circumstances, he came into possession of the same, and why his possession, in relation to such a contraband, was not conscious. No doubt, the presumption, operating against the accused, under the aforesaid Sections, can be rebutted by him, during the course of crossexamination of the prosecution witnesses, or by leading defence evidence. However, if the accused does not rebut the presumption, by leading cogent and convincing evidence, or by proving during the course of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses cogently, that he was not in conscious possession of such contraband, then he could not be said to have discharged the onus, cast upon him, under the aforesaid provisions of law. In Madan Lals and Megh Singhs cases (supra), the accused were found to be in physical possession of the contraband and control thereof. Once they failed to discharge their onus, cast upon them under the provisions of Sections 35 and 54 of the Act, they were held guilty upto the Apex Court. In Madan Lals and Megh Singhs cases (supra), the accused were found to be in physical possession of the contraband and control thereof. Once they failed to discharge their onus, cast upon them under the provisions of Sections 35 and 54 of the Act, they were held guilty upto the Apex Court. Not only this, in Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujrat 2000(1) RCR (Crl.) 611 (S.C.), a case decided by a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court, the appellant was driving an auto rickshaw, from where, the contraband was recovered. The appellant admitted the recovery, but stated that he was engaged for carriage purposes, by two persons, who were not known to him, and was carrying the bags to the destination to be told by them. In these circumstances, it was held by the Apex Court, that the onus under Section 35 of the Act, was on the accused, to prove, that he did not know the contents of the bags. He could discharge the burden, by relying on the materials available, in the prosecution evidence. He could elicit answers, from the prosecution witnesses, during the course of their cross-examination, or by adducing defence evidence to discharge the onus. In that case, the appellant, fully discharged the onus, by proving that he did not know, as to what was contained, in the gunny bags, though he admitted the possession thereof. The Apex Court held that the culprits who had kept the gunny bags, in the auto-rickshaw, were also arrayed, as accused, but the Investigating agency, was not able to arrest them. It was further held by the Apex Court, that no evidence was produced, that there was any conspiracy, between the auto rickshaw driver, and those passengers, or that they were close to each other, or even knew each other earlier. In these circumstances, it was held by the Apex Court, that the auto rickshaw driver was successful in rebutting the presumption operating under Section 35 of the Act. In the instant case, as stated above, none of the accused stated in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., that he had merely taken lift in the truck, as he knew the driver thereof, and, as such, did not know, as to what was contained in the bags, lying in the body of the truck. In the instant case, as stated above, none of the accused stated in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., that he had merely taken lift in the truck, as he knew the driver thereof, and, as such, did not know, as to what was contained in the bags, lying in the body of the truck. None of the accused took up the plea, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., as to under what circumstances, he was proceeding to the same destination to which his co- accused were proceeding. None of the accused took up the plea in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he was merely a carrier of the bags, containing poppy-husk, and in that capacity he was found sitting in the truck, over the bags, and was not aware of the contents thereof. None of the accused took up the plea that he had only been engaged to load the bags, containing poppy-husk, in the truck. None of the accused even took up the plea that he was not sitting on the bags in the truck. None of the accused took up the plea, as to how, he was travelling in the truck, which was not a public vehicle, meant for carrying the passengers. None of the accused took up the plea that 90 bags, containing poppy-husk, lying in the truck, over which he was sitting, escaped his notice, and, as such, he was not aware of the contents thereof. None of the accused could bring any material, during the course of the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, which may go to prove that he was not in possession of these bags, containing poppy-husk, but the same belonged to some other person, may be the owner of the truck. Even no evidence, in defence, was produced by any of the accused, with regard to the aforesaid aspects of the matter. In these circumstances, the accused miserably failed to rebut, the statutory presumption, operating under Sections 35 and 54 of the Act, that they were in conscious possession of the bags, containing poppy-husk, which were recovered from the truck, on which they were sitting. In these circumstances, no help can be drawn by the Counsel for the accused/appellants from Tarsem Singhs, Harbans Singhs, Surjan Singh @ Kalas, and Avtar Singhs cases (supra) as the facts thereof, are distinguishable, from the facts of the present case. In these circumstances, no help can be drawn by the Counsel for the accused/appellants from Tarsem Singhs, Harbans Singhs, Surjan Singh @ Kalas, and Avtar Singhs cases (supra) as the facts thereof, are distinguishable, from the facts of the present case. Not only this, the principle of law laid down in Tarsem Singhs, Harbans Singhs and Surjan Singhs cases (supra), decided by this Court, on the same point, to the contrary, shall not hold the field, in view of the principle of law laid down Madan Lals and Megh Singhs cases (supra) decided by the Apex Court. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellants, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 12. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellants, that the case property, which was produced, in the Court, during the course of evidence, did not bear any mark of identification and even the seals were not legible. They further submitted, that under these circumstances, it could not be said that the case property produced, in the Court, at the time of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, was the same, as was allegedly recovered from the appellants. The Counsel for the appellants further submitted that the prosecution, thus miserably failed to connect the case property, produced in the Court, with the instant case, and, as such, the case of the prosecution became doubtful, the benefit whereof must go to the accused. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. The case property was produced, at the time of the evidence of Inspector Gurdev Singh ( PW4 ). He in clear-cut terms, stated in examination-in-chief, that the bags, which were produced at the time of his evidence, were the same, which were recovered from the truck, which one accused, was driving and the remaining three accused were sitting on the bags containing poppy husk, lying therein. During the course of cross-examination, it was, however, stated by him that the seals on the bags were not legible . It may be stated here, that recovery, in this case, was effected on 20.04.1993 whereas, Inspector Gurdev Singh ( PW4 ) was examined in chief on 01.02.2000 and cross-examined on 30.05.2000 i.e. after about seven years of the recovery. During this period, the case property remained lying in the malkhana. It may be stated here, that recovery, in this case, was effected on 20.04.1993 whereas, Inspector Gurdev Singh ( PW4 ) was examined in chief on 01.02.2000 and cross-examined on 30.05.2000 i.e. after about seven years of the recovery. During this period, the case property remained lying in the malkhana. The case properties of a number of cases, are kept in the malkhana, due to the shortage of space, in such a manner, as the paper slips affixed thereon containing the particulars of the cases, are bound to undergo the process of decay. If, on account of irresponsible handling, lapse of sufficient time, between the date of recovery, and production of the case property, in the Court, and during the course of transit, seals on some of the bags stood broken and some of the bags containing poppy husk underwent the process of natural decay, that did not mean that the case property, produced in the Court, did not stand connected with the case. The direct evidence of the prosecution witnesses to the effect that the case property was the same, as was recovered from the accused, could be taken into consideration. In State of Rajasthan v. Udey Lal 2008 (2) RCR ( Criminal ) 956 (SC), 119 bags containing poppy husk were recovered. Only five bags out of 119 bags, were produced, at the time of trial of the case. The remaining bags were not produced in the Court. The bags, which were produced, in the Court, did not bear the mark of identification and the seals were not legible thereon. Four independent witnesses were joined, in that case, and examined. All of them resiled from their previous statements. However, they admitted their signatures, on their documents. The trial Court convicted the accused. This High Court acquitted them. The Apex Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and restored the judgment of the trial Court. In Trilochan v. Assistant Commissioner Customs 2003 (1) RCR (Criminal ) 47 (DB) (PH) 75 Kgs heroin was recovered. The Magistrate went to the Customs house, and prepared inventory. The case property was not produced during the course of trial. It was held that direct evidence, regarding recovery, was sufficient to prove the case and non production of the case property, during the trial, did not make the case of the prosecution doubtful. The Magistrate went to the Customs house, and prepared inventory. The case property was not produced during the course of trial. It was held that direct evidence, regarding recovery, was sufficient to prove the case and non production of the case property, during the trial, did not make the case of the prosecution doubtful. In this case, Sub Inspector Gurdev Singh, the Investigating Officer, produced the case property alongwith sample impressions of the seals before Sub Inspector Darshan Singh, SHO. PW3 Darshan Singh, Sub Inspector stated that on 21.4.1993, he produced all the accused along with the case property before the Illaqa Magistrate, Zira. He further stated that he also moved an application Ex.P22 regarding the production of the case property, upon which the Illaqa Magistrate passed order Ex.P22/A. Ex.P22/A the order passed by the Illaqa Magistrate, is the primary evidence. Even if, the bags containing poppy husk, had not been produced in the Court, the direct evidence produced by the prosecution along with Ex.22/A could be taken into consideration, to prove that the recovery of contraband was effected from the accusedappellants. The facts of the instant case, stand on better footing than State of Rajasthans case (supra ). The only obligation, upon the prosecution was to produce the case property, in the Court, and get it identified, from the prosecution witnesses, so as to connect the same with the case. In the instant case, the case property was produced, in the Court, during the course of the evidence of Gurdev Singh, Inspector ( PW4 ), who identified the same, as the one, as was recovered from the accused. Under these circumstances, the case property produced in the Court, stood duly connected with the case. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellants, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 13. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellants, that the case property in this case was tampered with. They invited the attention of this Court to the statement of Darshan Singh, SHO (PW3). In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellants, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 13. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellants, that the case property in this case was tampered with. They invited the attention of this Court to the statement of Darshan Singh, SHO (PW3). They further submitted that on the statement of MHC Balwinder Singh, case FIR No. 123 dated 6.7.1993 Police Station Zira, under Sections 409 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and under the Prevention of Corruption Act, was registered against Gurdev Singh, Sub Inspector, recovery witness and other police officials of this case, on the ground, that they had misappropriated the same. It may be stated here, that the case property of this case was deposited in Police Station Zira and not in Police Post, Fategarh. Balwinder Singh, MHC, Police Post Fatehgarh Panjtoor, therefore, never came into possession of the case property. He was not aware of the fact where the case property was. Under these circumstances, the very lodging of FIR No. 123 dated 6.7.1993, referred to above, was a doubtful affair. Admittedly FIR No. 123 dated 6.7.1993 was quashed by this Court. Since the FIR, which was registered against the Investigating Officer, and other police officials of this case, regarding the embezzlement of case property, has already been quashed, it could not be said that they embezzled the same. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellants, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 14. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellants, that since no specific question regarding possession was put to the accused, during the course of their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. no evidence in that regard, could be used against them. It may be stated here, that Sukhwinder Singh was put a question that he was driving the truck, whereas, the remaining accused were sitting on the bags, containing poppy husk, in the body of the same. As stated above, a big haul of poppy husk was recovered from the truck. Out of four accused, one was found driving the truck and the remaining three were found sitting on the bags, containing poppy husk, in the body of the truck. As stated above, a big haul of poppy husk was recovered from the truck. Out of four accused, one was found driving the truck and the remaining three were found sitting on the bags, containing poppy husk, in the body of the truck. It, therefore, could not be said that they were not aware of the contents thereof. As such, from the questions, which were put to the accused, in their statements, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is clearly revealed that they were made aware of the factum that they were in physical possession of and in control over the bags containing poppy husk. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellants, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 15. Now coming to the defence version, it may be stated here, that the same was thoroughly discussed by the trial Court in para Nos. 22 and 23 of the judgment, in context of the defence evidence, produced by the accused. Valid reasons were recorded by the trial Court, in these paragraphs for disbelieving the defence version, and discarding the same. It was also held in these paragraphs, that the accused failed to prove the telegram Ex.D3. The trial Court was, thus, right in holding, in these paragraphs, that it was the tendency amongst the smugglers of contraband and narcotic drugs, that they give advance telegrams raising the apprehension of their false implication, when they have to carry the contraband, from one place to another place, as was done in the present case. The trial Court was also right in holding that as per the statement of DW5 Harbhajan Singh, Ex-Member Panchayat of village Kot Sadar Khan , the panchayat only passed a resolution regarding illegal detention or false implication of accused Amrik Singh, in the present case. It did not send this resolution to the Police Officers or to the other administrative authorities. The trial Court, was thus, right in holding that such a resolution was of no use, to prove the defence of the accused. The trial Court placed reliance on Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab 1998 SCC (Criminal) 1638 . It did not send this resolution to the Police Officers or to the other administrative authorities. The trial Court, was thus, right in holding that such a resolution was of no use, to prove the defence of the accused. The trial Court placed reliance on Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab 1998 SCC (Criminal) 1638 . In that case, the defence of the accused was that he (the accused) was taken into custody by the police, 15 days before the date of the incident and the complaint, in that behalf, was made to the Panchayat, which had passed a resolution, protesting against his detention. The defence was considered and was not held acceptable by the Apex Court because no complaint was made to the Police authorities by the Panchayat or to any other administrative authority regarding the alleged unlawful detention of the accused. Since the defence version was discarded by the trial Court, being an after thought by recording valid reasons, in the aforesaid paragraphs, there is no ground to interfere with such findings of the trial Court. This Court after scrutinizing the defence version in context of the defence evidence, also comes to the same conclusion. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 16. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties. 17. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, are based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point. The same do not warrant any interference. The same are liable to be upheld. 18. For the reasons recorded, hereinbefore, appeal Nos. 178-SB of 2001 and 323-SB of 2001, are dismissed. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 25.01.2001, are upheld. If the appellants are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, shall comply with the judgment, with due promptitude, keeping in view the applicability of the provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and submit the compliance report within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. 19. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, shall comply with the judgment, with due promptitude, keeping in view the applicability of the provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and submit the compliance report within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. 19. Truck No. AS-01-C/1070 being used for carrying 90 bags, containing poppy husk, as per the registration certificate Ex.P-14 belongs to Sukhwinder Singh son of Niranjan Singh, accused, who was driving the same(truck). No separate order was passed by the trial Court, regarding confiscation of the truck. The truck stands confiscated. The trial Court/the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, shall initiate necessary steps, for taking into possession the truck, in question , referred to above, immediately, and dispose of the same, in accordance of the provisions of law, after the expiry of period of appeal or revision, if none is filed, or subject to the decision of the same, if one is filed.