Judgment Sham Sunder, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 04.09.1997, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide which it convicted the accused (now appellant), for the offence, punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to be as the Act only) and sentenced him to undergo RI for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac, in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment, for a period of two years, for having been found in possession of 40 bags, each containing 41 KGs poppy husk. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 28.04.1994, Inspector Swarn Dass along with ASI Jaswant Singh and some other police officials, was present, on the canal bridge Kangna, in connection with holding a special picket, as per the order of the DSP. A secret information was received, against Piara accused that he was indulging into the sale of poppy husk and was having bags containing the same near eucalyptus trees, in the area of village Thathiala Bet. The secret informer further informed that, if a raid was conducted, recovery of poppy husk in huge quantity could be effected from him. Swarn Dass, Inspector, tried to join some independent witnesses, but none was ready to join the investigation. Thereafter the police party raided the disclosed place, in the area of village Thathiala Bet. Piara accused was found sitting on the bags of poppy husk. On search 40 bags of poppy husk, was recovered from the possession of the accused, without any permit or licence. Wireless message was sent to Jagdish Singh Kahlon, DSP, as a result whereof, he came to the spot. Swarn Dass, Inspector produced before him the accused and 40 bags each containing 41 Kgs poppy husk, referred to above. Jagdish Singh Kahlon, DSP, took out a sample of 250 grams from each of the bags. Thereafter, the contents of the samples were put into small cloth packets and the remaining poppy husk was kept in the same bags. These were converted into parcels, duly sealed and taken into possession, vide separate recovery memo Ex.PA. The accused was arrested. The site plan was prepared. The Statement of the witnesses were recorded. After the completion of investigation, the accused was challaned. 3. These were converted into parcels, duly sealed and taken into possession, vide separate recovery memo Ex.PA. The accused was arrested. The site plan was prepared. The Statement of the witnesses were recorded. After the completion of investigation, the accused was challaned. 3. On his appearance, in the Court, the accused was supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. Charge under Section 15 of the Act, was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed judicial trial. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Jaswant Singh,SI, (PW-1), Swarn Singh, Inspector, (PW-2), Ravinder Singh, MHC, (PW-3), Karam Chand, Constable, (PW-4), and Jagdish Singh Kahlon, DSP, (PW-5) Thereafter, the Addl. P.P for the State, closed the prosecution evidence. 5. The statement of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded. He was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. He, however, stated that he was lifted from the cremation ground of village Langroya, by the police. Nothing was recovered from him. The police obtained his thumb impressions, on blank papers, by using force, and falsely implicated him in this case. In defence, death certificate Ex.DA was produced. 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 appeal, was filed by the accused-appellant. 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 appellant, at the very outset, vehemently, contended that since the alleged recovery of poppy husk was effected, from an open and accessible place, the accused could not be said to be in conscious and exclusive possession of the same. He further submitted that, under these circumstances, no offence under Section 15 of the Act was committed by the appellant. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. A secret information was received, against the accused, that he was in possession of a big haul of poppy husk and could be apprehended in case a raid was conducted. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. A secret information was received, against the accused, that he was in possession of a big haul of poppy husk and could be apprehended in case a raid was conducted. It was on the basis of secret information that the police party reached the spot, where the accused was found sitting on the bags, containing poppy husk. Jaswant Singh, Sub Inspector, a witness to the recovery, in clear cut terms stated that when the raid was conducted at the disclosed place, the accused was found sitting on 40, bags containing poppy husk. Swarn Dass, Inspector, who is the Investigating Officer, during the course of his statement, also stated that when the raid was conducted, at the disclosed place, in pursuance of the secret information, in the area of village Thathiala Bet, the accused was found sitting on 40 bags, containing poppy husk. He also stated, during the course of cross-examination, that the accused and the bags were not visible, as the area was surrounded by wild, growth of sufficient height ( sarkandas ). It was not that the accused was sitting at some distance from those bags. Under what circumstances, he was sitting on the aforesaid bags, containing poppy husk, was for him to explain. Once he was found sitting, on the bags, containing poppy husk, he could be said to be in exclusive possession thereof and in control over the same. Once the physical possession of the accused, in respect of the bags containing poppy husk, and his control over the same, was proved, then statutory presumption under Sections 35 and 54 operated against him, that he was in conscious possession thereof. Thereafter, it was for the accused, to rebut the statutory presumption operating against him, under the aforesaid provisions. Once the physical possession of the accused, in respect of the bags containing poppy husk, and his control over the same, was proved, then statutory presumption under Sections 35 and 54 operated against him, that he was in conscious possession thereof. Thereafter, it was for the accused, to rebut the statutory presumption operating against him, under the aforesaid provisions. 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." 10. 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). 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-A. 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 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. 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 to whom the physical possession is given holds it subject to that power or control. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused did not take up the plea, that he was just passing by the way and sat on the bags for taking rest. He also did not take up the plea that the bags which were found, did not belong to him, but to somebody else. He also did not take up the plea that he was falsely implicated, in the instant case, by lifting him, from the cremation ground. He also did not take up the plea that the bags which were found, did not belong to him, but to somebody else. He also did not take up the plea that he was falsely implicated, in the instant case, by lifting him, from the cremation ground. It was not a small quantity of poppyhusk, which was concealed, and, as such, could escape the notice of the accused. The accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption, operating against him, regarding his conscious possession, under the provision of Sections 35 and 54 of the Act. Keeping in view the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid authority, the provisions of Sections 35 and 54, and the evidence produced, in this case, the trial Court, in my opinion, was right in coming to the conclusion, that the accused was in conscious possession of 40 bags each containing 41 kgs. Poppy- husk. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 11. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that no investigation was conducted by the investigating agency, as to how, the bags containing poppy husk aforesaid, came there, where the accused-appellant was allegedly found sitting thereon. In this case, it was not necessary for the investigating agency to conduct investigation as to how, the bags containing poppy husk, were found there. Since the accused was found sitting on the bags, containing poppy husk, and, as such, in physical possession thereof, it was for him, to explain, as to how the said bags were transported to that place. Had the accused been not found sitting, on the bags, containing poppy husk but at a sufficient distance thereof, then it would have been required of investigating agency, to conduct further investigation, as to how, the bags containing poppy husk, came there and, as to whom the same belonged. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 12. It was next contended by the Counsel for the appellant, that the provisions of Section 50 of the Act, were not complied with, and, as such, the investigation, trial and conviction, stood vitiated. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 12. It was next contended by the Counsel for the appellant, that the provisions of Section 50 of the Act, were not complied with, and, as such, the investigation, trial and conviction, stood vitiated. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. The provisions of Section 50 of the Act, were not applicable to the instant case, as the recovery was not effected, from the person of the accused-appellant but from the bags, referred to above. In State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, 1999(6) S.C.C. 172, a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, settled beyond doubt, that the language of Section 50, was implicitly clear that the search had to be in relation to a person, and not in relation to the premises, vehicles, or articles. Similar view, was taken in Smt. Krishna Kanwar Thakuraeen v. State of Rajasthan, JT 2004(1) S.C. 597. In these circumstances, it can be said that the consistent, and particularly the view of the larger Bench of the Supreme Court, appears to be that the search, must relate to the person, and not vehicles, other luggage and articles, and then alone the provisions of Section 50 would be attracted. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 13. It was next contended by the Counsel for the appellant that no independent witness was joined by the Investigating Officer, at the time of effecting the alleged recovery, as a result whereof, the prosecution case became doubtful. It is proved from the evidence of Jaswant Singh, Sub Inspector ( PW1 ) and Inspector Swarn Dass ( PW2 ) that a secret information was received at about 5.00 a.m. , when the sun had not yet risen. It was darkness, to some extent, at that time. Immediately thereafter, the police party reached the spot and apprehended the accused, while sitting on the bags containing poppy husk. Inspector Swarn Dass ( PW2 ) stated that he made an attempt to join an independent witness, but none was ready to join. It means that an effort was made to join an independent witness, but the Investigating Officer was not successful. Inspector Swarn Dass ( PW2 ) stated that he made an attempt to join an independent witness, but none was ready to join. It means that an effort was made to join an independent witness, but the Investigating Officer was not successful. Nothing could be brought out, during the course of the cross-examination of these witnesses, which may go to discredit their evidence. The witnesses had no ill-will, grudge or enmity against the accused, to falsely implicate him, in the present case. Even otherwise, it can not be imagined, that such a big haul of poppy husk, could be planted against the accused by the police party. In Appa Bai and a nother v. State of Gujrat AIR 1988 S.C. 696, it was held that the prosecution story cannot be thrown out, on the ground, that an independent witness had not been examined by it. It was further held that civilized people, are generally insensitive, when a crime is committed, even in their presence, and they withdraw from the victims side, and from the side of the vigilant. They keep themselves away from the Courts, unless it is inevitable. Moreover, they think the crime like a civil dispute, between two individuals, and do not involve themselves in it. In State of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil (2000) ISCC 748, it was held as under:- "It is an archaic notion that actions of the Police Officers should be approached with initial distrust. It is time now to start placing at least initial trust on the actions and the documents made by the Police. At any rate, the Court can not start with the presumption that the Police records are untrustworthy. As a proposition of law, the presumption should be the other way round. The official acts of the Police have been regularly performed is a wise principle of presumption and recognized even by the Legislature". 14. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid authorities, is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. On account of non-joining of an independent witness, the case of the prosecution, did not become doubtful. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 15. 14. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid authorities, is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. On account of non-joining of an independent witness, the case of the prosecution, did not become doubtful. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 15. Reliance was placed on Ex.DA by the Counsel for the appellant, that the appellant was present in the cremation ground and was lifted there-from and implicated in the instant case. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. Ex.DA, is the death certificate of Lamber Ram. The perusal of the said death certificate, shows that he died on 25.04.1994 and the recovery in the instant case was effected on 28.04.1994. Why the accused-appellant had gone to cremation ground on 28.04.1994, is not known. He might have gone to the cremation ground at the time of cremation of the dead body of Lambar Ram, on 25.04.1994 to whom the death certificate Ex.DA, relates. This certificate does not, in any way, help the case of the appellant. The trial Court, was right in not placing reliance on Ex.DA, This Court also after re-appraisal of the same, comes to the same conclusion. Under these circumstances, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, 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, this appeal is dismissed. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 04.09.1997, are upheld. If the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, shall take necessary steps, in accordance with the provisions of law, to comply with the judgment, with due promptitude.