Judgment Harbans Lal, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment/order of sentence dated 25.10.1999 passed by the learned Special Judge, Ferozepur, whereby he convicted and sentenced both the accused Sukhdev Singh and Jagtar Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, the defaulter to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity, the Act). 2. The facts in brief of the prosecution case are that on 3.4.1998, Bachan Singh Sub Inspector Incharge of Police Post Kot Isekhan among other police officials had set up Naka in the area of Village Gagra. Around 6.45 P.M. one truck bearing registration No. PCR 4663 was spotted approaching from Moga side. On catching sight of the police party, the truck driver turned the truck towards village Khosa Randhir on the link road. On being chased, the truck being driven by Sukhdev Singh accused was intercepted on the link road. Jagtar Singh accused was sitting on the gunny bags loaded in the truck. When both the accused failed to give a satisfactory reply, the bags were got unloaded. Out of which, 25 were of full size and the remaining 250 were of small size. The small size bags were found containing Methi seeds. The full size bags were suspected to contain some contraband. The accused were asked to tell whether they want to have search of the bags in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. They offered to have search of bags before a gazetted officer. On receipt of wireless message, Nachhatar Singh DSP Zira came at the spot. He also disclosed his identity to the accused and apprised them of being a gazetted officer. The accused reposed confidence in him. On search of the gunny bags, the same were found containing poppy husk. When weighed, the contents of each bag came to 35 Kgs. 250 grams poppy husk was drawn from each bag to serve as sample and converted into parcels. The remainder of each bag was also turned into parcels. All the parcels were sealed with the seal BS. The sample seal was kept separately. The seal after use was handed over to ASI Lal Singh. 250 grams poppy husk was drawn from each bag to serve as sample and converted into parcels. The remainder of each bag was also turned into parcels. All the parcels were sealed with the seal BS. The sample seal was kept separately. The seal after use was handed over to ASI Lal Singh. The above mentioned DSP also affixed his own seal on the parcels and kept his seal with him. All the parcels along with the truck were seized vide recovery memo. The gunny bags containing methi seeds were also taken into possession vide recovery memo. The photostat copy of the certificate of registration of the truck along with consignment papers of methi seeds were also seized vide separate recovery memo. The Sub Inspector sent Ruqa to the police station, where on its basis, formal FIR was registered, prepared rough site plan showing the place of recovery, recorded statements of witnesses, disclosed the grounds of arrest to the accused and on return to the police station, produced the case property before SHO Anokh Singh, who after verification, also affixed his own seal AS on all the sealed parcels as well as the specimen seal impression. The case property was taken into possession vide separate recovery memo by the aforesaid SHO. The case property along with the accused was produced before the Illaqa Magistrate. On return to the police station, the case property was kept by the SHO in his own custody. On receipt of chemical examiners report and after completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the Court for trial of the accused. 3. Both the accused were charged under Section 15 of the Act, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. To bring home guilt against the accused, the prosecution examined PW1- Constable Rup Singh, PW2-DSP Nachhatar Singh, PW3-ASI Lal Singh, PW4-SI Bachan Singh, PW5-Anokh Singh, the then SHO and closed its evidence. 5. When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, both the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them and pleaded false implication. Sukhdev Singh accused put forth that he had obtained a loan from Partap Motors Finance Company, Nakodar. Some of the installments were paid and the remaining were due from him. When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, both the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them and pleaded false implication. Sukhdev Singh accused put forth that he had obtained a loan from Partap Motors Finance Company, Nakodar. Some of the installments were paid and the remaining were due from him. At the instance of the Finance Company, he was falsely implicated in this case when he defaulted to pay the remaining installments. The accused Jagtar Singh has come up with the plea that he had gone to Moga to see his ailing sister-in-law. He, along with his Sandu (wifes sisters husband) Balbir Singh, was waiting for a vehicle on the main road and in the meantime, a truck was spotted coming and on his request, the truck driver gave lift to him. In defence, they examined DW-1 Gaurav Gulati and DW2-Balbir Singh. 6. After hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced both the accused as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved with his conviction/sentence, Jagtar Singh has preferred this appeal. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. 8. Mr. Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, urged with a good deal of force that right from the beginning, it is the stand of the appellant-Jagtar Singh that he along with his wifes sisters husband, Balbir Singh was waiting for a vehicle on the road-side and when the truck in question came over there, he was given a lift by Sukhdev Singh Driver and that he was unaware of the contents of the bags loaded in the truck, and thus, his possession or conscious possession is not established. 9. Mr. P.S. Grewal, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, on behalf of the State argued that in view of the provisions of Section 35 as well, as 54 of the Act, the conscious possession of the appellant is established. I am unable to persuade myself to agree with this submission. 10. It is in the cross-examination of ASI Lal Singh PW/3 that Jagtar Singh accused was sitting on the gunny bags loaded in the truck. I am unable to persuade myself to agree with this submission. 10. It is in the cross-examination of ASI Lal Singh PW/3 that Jagtar Singh accused was sitting on the gunny bags loaded in the truck. The gunny bags containing poppy husk were on the bottom of the truck whereas bags containing methi seeds were on the gunny bags containing poppy husk and on the bags containing the methi, the accused was sitting. That gunny bags of poppy husk were not visible. It is in his further cross-examination that "when the truck was stopped, then Jagtar Singh did not try to slip away by jumping from the truck. The police officials were in uniform." On appreciating this evidence, it follows that the appellant was not sitting on the bags containing poppy husk. To add further to it, if he had been aware of the contents of the gunny bags of poppy husk placed below the gunny bags containing methi seeds, he in the natural course of conduct, would have made an attempt to flee when the truck was stopped by the Police. Thus, it is deducible from this evidence that the contents of the gunny bags placed below the bags containing methi seeds were not within his knowledge. It is in the cross-examination of SI Bachan Singh PW/4, Investigator that "it is correct that I inquired from Sukhdev Singh as to what is in the truck, but he did not reply satisfactorily. Then, the police party became suspicious regarding some incriminating articles in the truck. Then I inquired from Jagtar Singh as to what is in the bags. Then, he replied that he has no knowledge about the contents of the bags." This evidence further indicates that he had denied the knowledge about the contents of the bags before the Investigating Officer. He has come up with the plea that "I am innocent. I have no connection with the truck or the bags. I have no relations with Sukhdev Singh. I had gone to Moga to see my wifes sisters husband, Balbir Singh and after meeting him, I along with Balbir Singh was waiting for the vehicle to reach my village back. In the meanwhile, the truck came there and I took lift in that truck in order to reach my village. I never knew the contents of gunny bags. I had gone to Moga to see my wifes sisters husband, Balbir Singh and after meeting him, I along with Balbir Singh was waiting for the vehicle to reach my village back. In the meanwhile, the truck came there and I took lift in that truck in order to reach my village. I never knew the contents of gunny bags. I narrated all this to the police and the police also called Balbir Singh and joined in the investigation. He also disclosed the true facts." He has examined Balbir Singh DW/2 who has fortified this plea of the appellant. He could not be shattered or shaken in any manner when he was subjected to cross-examination. Thus ostensibly, on analysing the above evidence, in the background of the plea taken by the appellant, it emanates that the appellant indeed had taken a lift and he was not cognizant of the contents of the bags loaded in the truck. In re : Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 2000(1) RCR(Criminal) 611 : 2000 Criminal Law Journal 1384, the accused was driving an auto-rickshaw. Four bags of contraband were recovered from his auto rickshaw. He admitted the recovery but contended that he had no knowledge that bags contained contrabands. It was held by the Apex Court that onus is on the accused to prove that he had no knowledge and that it has not been shown by the prosecution that the accused had entered into conspiracy with persons, who engaged him for carriage purpose or they were either known to each other. It was held that the burden cast on the accused under Section 35 of the Act stands duly discharged. The accused was acquitted. Here in this case, as emanates from evidence, the appellant was stranger to the truck driver and he had taken a lift without knowing as to what were the contents of the bags lying in the truck. The prosecution has not adduced any evidence to the effect that in any manner the accused had entered into conspiracy with his co-accused-truck driver or that he knew about the contents of the bags. Sequelly, it is held that by no stretch of speculation, the presumption arising either under Sections 35 or 54 of the Act can be drawn against the appellant. Sequelly, it is held that by no stretch of speculation, the presumption arising either under Sections 35 or 54 of the Act can be drawn against the appellant. In view of the above discussed evidence, the onus shifted on the prosecution to prove that the presumption under the said Sections operate in its favour. The prosecution has failed to discharge such onus. In view of the preceding discussion, this appeal succeeds and is accepted, setting aside the impugned judgment/conviction qua appellant Jagtar Singh. He is acquitted of the charged offence.