Judgment HARBANS LAL, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment/order of sentence dated 21.3.2003 passed by the court of learned Judge, Special Court, Kapurthala whereby he convicted and sentenced the accused Gurnam Singh and Ranjit Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.1.00 lac each under Sec.15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the Act) and in default of payment of fine, the defaulter to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. 2. As the prosecution story goes, on 29.8.1999, SHO Kuljinder Singh alongwith other police officials on the direction of DSP Joginder Singh had laid naka on the turning of the road in the area of village Badshahpur. Meanwhile, Ura Singh member panchayat came from the side of village Dham and was joined by the police party. Around 8.00 A. M. truck bearing registration No. PJC-1634 came from the side of village Subhanpur and the same was signalled to stop. The truck driver made an endeavour to slip away, but he was intercepted. He disclosed his name as Gurnam Singh. The other person who was sitting in the struck disclosed his name to be Ranjit singh. On receipt of message, DSP Joginder Singh came at the spot. On search of the truck , 9 gunny bags of poppy husk lying beneath the ply were recovered.250 gms poppy husk was drawn from each bag to serve as sample which was converted into parcels. The residue of each bag when weighed came to 24 kgs which was also turned into parcels. These parcels were sealed with seal bearing impressions JS belonging to the DSP. These alongwith the truck as also the documents were seized. The seal after use was handed over to ASI Kuldeep Singh. Both the accused were arrested. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the court for trial of the accused. 3. The accused were charged under Sec.15 of the Act to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate its allegations, the prosecution examined PW-1 Constable Joga Singh, PW-2 HC Jasbir singh, PW-3 SI Kuljinder Singh SHO, PW-4 retired DSP Joginder Singh and closed its evidence by tendering the report of the Chemical Examiner. 4. When examined under Sec.313 Cr. In order to substantiate its allegations, the prosecution examined PW-1 Constable Joga Singh, PW-2 HC Jasbir singh, PW-3 SI Kuljinder Singh SHO, PW-4 retired DSP Joginder Singh and closed its evidence by tendering the report of the Chemical Examiner. 4. When examined under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. , the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them and pleaded innocence as well false implication at the instance of DSP who had demanded the begar from them. In their defence, they did not adduce any evidence. 5. 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 therewith, they have preferred this appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. Mr. A. S. Kalra, advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellants eloquently urged that if Ura singh independent witness was present, the seal after use ought to have been entrusted to him instead of ASI Kuldeep Singh. Furthermore, the case property was never produced before the concerned S. H. O. in adherence to the provisions of Sec.55 of the Act ibid, but as is borne out from the evidence, this provision has been given a go by. This apart, the truck owner has neither been joined in the investigation, nor challaned under Sec.25 of the Act. To add further to it, the conscious possession of the appellants is not established. In the face of these lacunae, the learned trial Court was not justified in recording conviction/sentence. The learned State counsel maintained that the compliance of Sec.55 being mere directory in nature, the prosecution case cannot be thrown overboard. A glance through the Chemical Examiners report would reveal that the seals affixed on the sample parcels were intact and agreed with the sample seal, when the parcels were received in the Chemical examiners office. Thus, possibility of their contents being tampered with stands ruled out. As regards conscious possession, the recovery has been effected from the truck which was being driven by Gurnam Singh appellant, whereas his co-appellant Ranjit Singh was sitting on the bags in the truck. Thus, possibility of their contents being tampered with stands ruled out. As regards conscious possession, the recovery has been effected from the truck which was being driven by Gurnam Singh appellant, whereas his co-appellant Ranjit Singh was sitting on the bags in the truck. These contentions merit rejection for the discussion to follow hereunder:- Kuljinder Singh (sic) has not apportioned any reason for not entrusting the seal after use to Ura Singh a public man. ASI Kuldeep Singh being the police official, the seal could be taken back from him at any moment for tampering with the contents of the sample parcels before their dispatch for chemical analysis. It is in the cross-examination of kuljinder Singh (sic) that place of recovery is a thorough fare. When the truck was being searched at that time independent witness might have been passing but I was busy in the investigation of the case. So, I did not request anyone to join the investigation. " It is also in the cross-examination of Joginder singh retired DSP PW-4 that "place of recovery is a thorough fare. " This evidence speaks volumes of the fact that there was no dearth to the availability of passers-by for being joined in the investigation. It surfaces in his further cross-examination that "it is correct that on the gunny bags case particulars were not written. Volunteered chits containing case particulars were pasted on the gunny bags. " If the chits containing the particulars of the case had been there on the bags at the time of his examination, he would have certainly deposed so. He has admitted in clear and unambiguous terms that the case particulars were not written on the gunny bags i. e. case property. There being no particulars of the case on these bags, it would be going too far to say that the same relate to this case. To put it differently it cannot be said with absolute certitude that the bags produced in the court as the case property were the same as were recovered from the alleged truck. Thus the case property does not stand connected with the appellants. It further appears in his cross-examination that" later on bilti was produced by the owner. I did not record the statement of the owner who produced the bilti. On the spot bilti was not recovered from the driver. Normally the bilti remains with the driver. Thus the case property does not stand connected with the appellants. It further appears in his cross-examination that" later on bilti was produced by the owner. I did not record the statement of the owner who produced the bilti. On the spot bilti was not recovered from the driver. Normally the bilti remains with the driver. " this evidence leaves no scope for doubt that the owner of this vehicle was not joined in the investigation for the reasons best known the Investigating officer. If he had appeared before the Investigator, it was latters duty to inquire from him as to whether he had authorized the driver to transport the poppy husk bags as well. Sec.25 of the Act reads as under:- "25. Punishment for allowing premises, etc. to be used for commission of an offence.--Whoever, being the owner or occupier or having the control or use of any house, room, enclosure, space, place, animal or conveyance, knowingly permits it to be used for the commission by any other person of an offence punishable under any provision of this Act, shall be punishable with the punishment provided for that offence." The prosecution has not given any reason for not initiating any sort of action against the owner of the vehicle. As per Ex. P-13 the permit Kashmira Singh is the registered owner of this vehicle. In view of this statutory provision, it was obligatory upon the investigator to have embarked upon enquiry as to whether or not Kashmir singh had knowingly permitted the accused to use his vehicle for the commission of this offence. If it had been to be affirmative, he ought to have been challaned. In case Avtar Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2002 (4) Recent Criminal reports (Criminal) 180, the accused were travelling in a truck belonging to accused No.5 in the small hours of 7.8.1989. The vehicle was carrying 16 bags of poppy husk being driven by Balbir Chand appellant No.3. One person, who was sitting in the front seat by the side of the driver and another person sitting on the back side of the truck ran away leaving the vehicle. The Apex Court held that "a case of drawing presumption under Sec.114 of the Evidence Act could perhaps be made out then to prove the possession of the accused, but, the fact remains that in the course of examination under Sec.313 Cr. The Apex Court held that "a case of drawing presumption under Sec.114 of the Evidence Act could perhaps be made out then to prove the possession of the accused, but, the fact remains that in the course of examination under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. not even a question was asked that they were the persons in possession of poppy husk placed in the vehicle. The only question put to them was that as per the prosecution evidence, they were sitting on the bags of poppy husk. Strangely enough, even the driver was questioned on the same lines. The object of examination under Sec.313, it is well known, is to afford an opportunity to the accused to explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. It is unfortunate that no question was asked about the possession of goods. Having regard to the charge of which appellants were accused, the failure to elicit their answer on such a crucial aspect as possession, is quite significant. In this state of things, it is not proper to raise a presumption under Sec.114 of the Evidence Act, nor is it after to conclude that the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were in possession of poppy husk which were being carried by the vehicle. The High Court resorted to the presumption under Sec.35 which relates to culpable state of mind, without considering the aspect of possession. The trial Court invoked the presumption under Sec.54 of the Act without addressing itself to the question of possession. The approach of both the courts is erroneous in law. Both the courts rested their conclusion on the fact that the accused failed to give satisfactory explanation for travelling in the vehicle containing poppy husk at an odd hour. But, the other relevant aspects pointed out above were neither adverted to, nor taken into account by the trial Court and the High Court. Non-application of mind to the material factors has thus vitiated the judgment under appeal." 6. In Raj Kumar Vs. State of Punjab 2005 (1) Recent Criminal reports (Criminal) 70 a bag containing opium lying between Raj Kumar and Hawa Singhs seat was recovered. The Division Bench of this Court held that both the accused have been charged for possession of opium, but neither of them had been asked any question in their statements under Sec.313 Cr. State of Punjab 2005 (1) Recent Criminal reports (Criminal) 70 a bag containing opium lying between Raj Kumar and Hawa Singhs seat was recovered. The Division Bench of this Court held that both the accused have been charged for possession of opium, but neither of them had been asked any question in their statements under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. that he was in conscious possession of opium. Therefore, neither presumption under Sec.35 nor the presumption under section 54 of the Act would be attracted. Adverting to the instant one, a glance through the statutory statements of both the appellants would reveal that the mere words put to them are that " five bories were found lying in the jeep from which chura post was recovered. " It has no where been put to either appellant that he was in conscious possession of the recovered poppy husk bags. In view of Raj Kumars case (supra) as well as Avtar Singhs case (supra) conscious possession of the appellants qua the recovered poppy husk bags has not been established by the prosecution. As regards Gurnam Singh appellant, he would have been charged alternatively for transporting the offensive goods without permit or authorization as required by law, but to the utter dismay of the prosecution, he has not been charged under the relevant Section. 7. For the reasons indicated above, this appeal succeeds and is accepted by setting aside impugned judgment/order of sentence. Both the accused/appellants are hereby acquitted of the charged offence by giving them benefit of reasonable doubt.