JUDGMENT R.C. Mishra, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 16-2-2006 passed by the Special Judge (under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985) (for short 'the Act'), Rewa in Special Case No. 4/2003, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 8 read with section20(b) (ii) (C) of the Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default, to suffer RI for 3 years. 2. The prosecution case may briefly be stated thus: (i) On 13-9-2003 at about 12.20 noon, Ashutosh Pandey (P.W. 5), the then SHO of P.S. Civil Lines, Rewa received a credible information to the effect that a huge quantity of Ganja was being transported in a truck, bearing registration No. CG-04-ZC-0553, that was going to proceed from Village Bela to Rewa. (ii) After recording the information in Rojnamcha (Exh. P-19); informing the superior police officials and observing other statutory formalities, he along with the other members of the police force and panch witnesses viz., Anurag Singh Baghel (P.W. 4) and Virendra Pratap Singh (P.W. 6) proceeded towards TRS College Chouraha (a junction of four paths) where the truck was expected to arrive. (iii) At about 1.30, a truck, being driven by the appellant only, was seen coming from Bela side. It was intercepted by the raiding party. Stopping the truck, the appellant tried to flee away but was apprehended immediately. With his consent only, the truck was duly searched. In the meanwhile, CSP K.L. Suryavanshi also reached the spot to witness the proceedings relating to search and seizure. In the truck, apparently loaded with consignment of coconuts, as many as 40 gunny bags containing Ganja were discovered. On weighment, each one of the bags was found to contain 30 kgs. of contraband. Thus, its total quantity came to be 12 quintals. Two samples of 25 gms. each were drawn from every sack and were duly packed and sealed. Remaining contraband in each bag was also sealed separately. All the 80 samples were forwarded to FSL, Sagar for chemical analysis. Corresponding report (Exh. P-32) indicated that each one of the samples contained Ganja, i.e., cannabis/hemp within the meaning of section 2 (iii) (b) of the Act. 3. each were drawn from every sack and were duly packed and sealed. Remaining contraband in each bag was also sealed separately. All the 80 samples were forwarded to FSL, Sagar for chemical analysis. Corresponding report (Exh. P-32) indicated that each one of the samples contained Ganja, i.e., cannabis/hemp within the meaning of section 2 (iii) (b) of the Act. 3. While denying the charge, the appellant pleaded that neither the truck belonged to him nor he was driving the same at the relevant point of time. According to him,- (i) The Truck, bearing registration No. CG-04-ZC-0553 belonged to his co-villager Narinder Singh whose brother Viras Singh was working as driver on the Truck. (ii) He himself is the owner of another truck having registration No. MH15-G-8506 that was taken by him to Raipur for getting its body built. (iii) At Raipur, Narinder Singh, while informing that Viras Singh had abandoned the Truck at Rewa, had asked him to proceed to Rewa to drive the truck to its destination. (iv) As he reached the police station where the truck was found parked, he was apprehended and roped in the case. 4. The prosecution sought to prove the charge by examining 9 witnesses in all including Detecting Officer Ashutosh Pandey (P.W. 5), panch witnesses Anurag Singh Baghel (P.W. 4) and Virendra Pratap Singh (P.W. 6) and weighman Rajendra Loniya (P.W. 3). The defence also called Vikas Nagre (D.W. 1) working as clerk in the office of RTO at Nasik and Bhajan Singh (D.W. 2), a truck driver, to establish some of the facts constituting the plea of defence. 5. On consideration of the entire evidence, the learned Special Judge, for the reasons recorded in the impugned judgment, found the appellant guilty of the offence charged with. He, therefore, convicted and sentenced him as indicated hereinabove. 6. Legality and propriety of the conviction in question have been questioned on the following grounds: (i) None of the independent witnesses had supported the prosecution case. (ii) The statutory provisions relating to search and seizure of the contraband and arrest of the appellant were not complied with. He, therefore, convicted and sentenced him as indicated hereinabove. 6. Legality and propriety of the conviction in question have been questioned on the following grounds: (i) None of the independent witnesses had supported the prosecution case. (ii) The statutory provisions relating to search and seizure of the contraband and arrest of the appellant were not complied with. (iii) No investigation was conducted to ascertain complicity of Viras Singh, Narinder Singh and Sonu despite the facts brought on record by way of the documents (Article 2' to Article 5f') suggesting that on 5-9-03, the consignment of coconuts was loaded in the Truck driven by Viras Singh at Someswaram District East Godawari (A.P.) for being transported to Kanpur and the admission made by Narinder Singh that Sonu, a resident of Bastar, was employed by him as the cleaner on the truck. 7. In addition, learned Counsel for the appellant, while making reference to decision of the Supreme Court in Jitendra v. State of M.P. AIR 2003 SC 4236 , has strenuously contended that the appeal deserves to be allowed on the solitary ground of non-production of the seized sacks containing contraband as articles of evidence before the Trial Court. However, a bare perusal of the record would reveal that the sacks, though in a damaged condition, were produced before the Trial Court and opportunity to cross-examine the Detecting Officer in this regard was also afforded to the defence. As such, the verdict in Jitendra's case (supra), has no application to the facts of the case. 8. In response, learned Panel Lawyer, while making reference to the incriminating pieces of evidence, has submitted that the conviction is well merited. 9. The Detecting Officer Ashutosh Pandey (P.W. 5) reiterated the facts as recorded by him in the FIR (Exh. P-17) immediately after conclusion of the proceedings relating to search and seizure as well as in the Special Report (Exh. P-1) forwarded to Superintendent of Police, Rewa on the following day. As per his statement, after receiving the information as to illicit transportation of Ganja in the Truck bearing registration No. CG-04-ZC-0553, he not only recorded the same in the Roznamcha but also communicated it to the CSP by way of letter forwarded through Constable Jhalak Naryan (P.W. 1). Corresponding entry in the Roznamcha (Exh. P-19) and copy of the letter (referred to Exh. P-1 but found marked as Exh. Corresponding entry in the Roznamcha (Exh. P-19) and copy of the letter (referred to Exh. P-1 but found marked as Exh. P-15) were also tendered in evidence. Constable Jhalak Narayan corroborated the fact that he had delivered the letter to CSP K.L. Raghuvanshi who, in turn, had also acknowledged the receipt thereof. 10. Constable Jhalak Narayan (P.W. 1) claimed to have brought Rajendra Loniya (P.W. 3) to weigh the contraband whereas Ashutosh Pandey clearly asserted that after communicating the information to the CSP, he along with the members of police force and panch witnesses namely Anurag Singh and Virendra Singh had proceeded to TRS College Square where the Truck was expected to come. He was emphatic in deposing that the Truck was intercepted and searched in presence of panch witnesses with the consent (Exh. P-16) of its driver viz., the appellant, as given in response to the notice (Exh. P-6). According to him, K.L. Raghuvanshi, the CSP had also arrived in the midst of the search proceedings. 11. As per statement of Ashutosh Pandey: (a) in the search of the Truck, 40 sacks covered by blue water proof cover and containing Ganja were found loaded along with 100 gunny bags containing coconuts. (b) on weighing by Rajendra, each one of the sacks was found to contain a total quantity of 30 kgs. of the contraband. (c) he had drawn two samples of 25 gms. each from the substance found in each sack. 12. Documents exhibited in evidence included search panchnama (Exh. P-8), weighment panchnama (Exh. P-5), seizure memo (Exh. P-12) and driving licence of the appellant (Article 1), Insurance Policy (Article 2), permit (Article 3B), Registration (Article 4), Bilty and other documents pertaining to transportation of consignment of coconuts from Someswaram to Kanpur in the Truck provided by Victory Safe Transport Service, Sundaram Nagar, Ravulapalem (Articles 5A to 5F'). 13. Detecting Officer Ashutosh Pandey was cross-examined at length but nothing materially inconsistent with the contents of the documents relating to the proceedings starting from the recording of the information and culminating in forwarding of the detailed report (Exh. P-1) to the Superintendent of Police could be elicited. 14. 13. Detecting Officer Ashutosh Pandey was cross-examined at length but nothing materially inconsistent with the contents of the documents relating to the proceedings starting from the recording of the information and culminating in forwarding of the detailed report (Exh. P-1) to the Superintendent of Police could be elicited. 14. While placing reliance on decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Harish v. State of M.P. 2010 (1) M.P.H.T. 90, learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the conviction based on the sole testimony of the Detecting Officer was not sustainable particularly in view of the statements of the independent witnesses that their signatures on the corresponding documents were obtained at the Police Station. 15. It is true that none of the Panch witnesses namely Anurag Singh (P.W. 4) and Virendra Singh (P.W. 6) came forward to support the prosecution version and Rajendra Loniya (P.W. 3) also did not corroborate the fact that he was summoned to weigh the contraband at the spot but this fact, by itself, would not make the prosecution case relating to seizure of huge quantity of Ganja less acceptable, if otherwise the Court is satisfied from the material on record and from the evidence of the seizing authority that such seizure was genuinely made [See : P.P. Beeran v. State of Kerala (2001) 9 SCC 571 and P.P. Fathima v. State of Kerala (2003) 8 SCC 726 ]. Further, the offence does not affect any private individual but the society at large and as observed by the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh AIR 1999 SC 2378 , the social malady of drug abuse has already acquired the dimensions of an epidemic. 16. Learned Counsel for the appellant still invited attention to the discrepancy between the statements of Ashutosh Pandey (P.W. 5) and ASI G.P. Tiwari (P.W. 2), examined as member of the raiding party, as to time of arrival of the Truck at the spot and the time taken in unloading of the contraband and its seizure etc. However, these discrepancies were of no consequence in view of the fact the evidence of the Detecting Officer was not, in any way, in conflict with the corresponding contents of the documents pertaining to search, seizure and arrest. 17. However, these discrepancies were of no consequence in view of the fact the evidence of the Detecting Officer was not, in any way, in conflict with the corresponding contents of the documents pertaining to search, seizure and arrest. 17. Investigating Officer Mukesh Tiwari (P.W. 9) candidly admitted that even after perusing the trans-shipment documents wherein name of the driver was written as Viras Singh, he did not prefer to ascertain as to whether it was the appellant only who had received the consignment at Someswaram for onward transportation to Kanpur. His assertion that he was not able to collect any information regarding the person working as cleaner also ran contrary to the admission made by Ashutosh Pandey (P. W. 5) that Narinder Singh had disclosed that one Sonu was working as Khalasi on the truck. However, it is well settled that even if the investigation is defective, it pales into insignificance when other testimony is found to be clear, credible and cogent [See: Dhanraj Singh @ Shera v. State of Punjab (2004) 3 SCC 654 ]. Accordingly, the omission on the part of Investigating Officer to interrogate Viras Singh or Sonu would not be sufficient to discard the other evidence on record relating to search and seizure of the contraband particularly when the corresponding documents indicated presence of CSP K.L. Suryavanshi. 18. The evidence on record clearly proves that the search and seizure of the contraband were effected only after complying with the requirements of section 42 (2) of the Act. The contention that for want of compliance with the mandatory provision of section 50 of the Act, the search was vitiated, is not acceptable as the Ganja was allegedly recovered at a public place from gunny bags kept in the Truck. For this, reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Jarnail Singh (2004) 5 SCC 188 , that was followed in Union of India v. Major Singh (2006) 9 SCC 170 . As pointed out already, the chemical analyst's report (Exh. P-32) proved that the articles forwarded for examination were Ganja only. 19. Even otherwise, in the light of the defence raised by the appellant that he was apprehended at the time when he had gone to drive the truck as per instructions of its registered owner viz., Narinder Singh, the matter lies in a very narrow compass. P-32) proved that the articles forwarded for examination were Ganja only. 19. Even otherwise, in the light of the defence raised by the appellant that he was apprehended at the time when he had gone to drive the truck as per instructions of its registered owner viz., Narinder Singh, the matter lies in a very narrow compass. The core question, therefore, is as to whether the finding that it was the appellant who was driving the Truck carrying the contraband was well founded in the face of evidence on record ? 20. As per information (Exh. D-3) proved by Vikas Nagre (D.W. 1), the address of the appellant, who claims to be a resident of Sultanpur, Kapurthala (Punjab), was recorded in the office of RTO, Nasik as registered owner of the truck bearing registration No. MH-15G-8506, in the following words: Gurmej Singh, Balvirsingh Dhillon Trimurtinagar, Hirawadi Road, Old Adgaon Naka, Panchavati - Nasik. 21. Moreover, the following facts were within the special knowledge of the accused-appellant: (i) Name and address of the owner of the Workshop where the truck No. MH-15G-8506 was left by him for getting its body built. (ii) The date and time of his departure from Raipur. (iii) Mode of journey and the date and time of his arrival at Rewa. (iv) The place/places where he had remained present during the period from 5-9-2003, i.e., the date of loading of the consignment at Somaspurara to 13-9-2003, i.e., the date of his arrest at Rewa. 22. It is not the law of this country that the prosecution has to eliminate all possible defences or circumstances, which may exonerate the accused. In a situation when the prosecution was able to discharge the initial burden of establishing the prima facie case of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the onus to prove his innocence by bringing the facts within his knowledge on record shifted on him only. However, instead of examining the owner of the Workshop, he produced Bhajan Singh, working as a driver on an altogether different truck (bearing registration No. MH/1151) in evidence. 23. As such, the contention that an exclusive and conscious possession of the contraband was not attributable to the appellant, also does not deserve acceptance in view of the fact that he did not discharge the onus of proof to rebut the presumption envisaged under sections 35 and 54of the Act. 23. As such, the contention that an exclusive and conscious possession of the contraband was not attributable to the appellant, also does not deserve acceptance in view of the fact that he did not discharge the onus of proof to rebut the presumption envisaged under sections 35 and 54of the Act. For further elucidation, the following observations made by the Apex Court in Madan Lal v. State of H.P. AIR 2003 SC 3642, may be quoted: The word 'possession' means the legal right to possession [See : Heath v. Drown 1972 (2) All ER 561 (HL)]. In an interesting case it was observed that where a person keeps his fire-arm in his mother's flat which is safer than his own home, he must be considered to be in possession of the same. [See : Sullivan v. Earl of Caithness 1976 (1) All ER 844 (QBD)]. 24. Accordingly, 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 presumption available in law. Similar is the position in terms of section 54where also presumption is available to be drawn from possession of illicit articles. 25. In the face of overwhelming incriminating evidence on record and a well-settled position of law on the point of conscious possession, learned Trial Judge did not commit any illegality in convicting the appellant for the offence charged with. Accordingly, the conviction in question deserves to be maintained. Since the minimum prescribed custodial and fine sentences have been awarded to the appellant, no interference herewith would be called for. 26. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. The impugned conviction and the corresponding sentences are hereby maintained. However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstance of the case suggesting a defective investigation, Superintendent of Police, Rewa is directed to- (i) depute a competent Police Officer to further investigate into the case in accordance with law so as to ascertain complicity of Viras Singh, Sonu and Narinder Singh in the offence. However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstance of the case suggesting a defective investigation, Superintendent of Police, Rewa is directed to- (i) depute a competent Police Officer to further investigate into the case in accordance with law so as to ascertain complicity of Viras Singh, Sonu and Narinder Singh in the offence. (ii) take appropriate action against SHO Ashutosh Pandey (P.W. 5) and Investigating Officer Mukesh Tiwari (P.W. 9), after affording an opportunity of being heard, for the lapses on their part in closing the investigation abruptly despite availability of sufficient material on record as to involvement of other persons in the offence.