JUDGMENT Mr. S.P. Bangarh, J.: - The appellants have assailed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.07.2007, passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Moga, in Session Case No. 43 dated 02.03.2006, emanating from FIR No. 200 dated 26.09.2005, under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short - ‘Act), Police Station Dharamkot, whereby, they were convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 15 of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 12 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,25,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for 01 year and six months each. 2. Since both the appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal No. D-791-DB of 2007, titled Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab and Criminal Appeal No. D-929-DB of 2007, titled Hakam Singh v. State of Punjab, have arisen from the common impugned judgment and order, these shall be decided by this common judgment. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 26.09.2005, Palwinder Singh ASI along with other police officials was holding a naka on the culvert of canal within the area of village Lohgarh. At about 2.30 a.m., a truck bearing registration No. RJ-13GA 0390 was spotted coming from the side of village Lohgarh, which was signalled to stop. On the stopping of the truck, one person from the conductor side ran away and two persons were apprehended at the spot. In the meantime, Sewak Singh resident of Khosa Kotla was joined in the police party. The person who was driving the truck ibid disclosed his name as Hakam Singh (appellant in CRA No. D-929-DB of 2007) resident of Thethar Khurd and the person sitting by his side disclosed his name as Kuldeep Singh (appellant in CRA No. D-791-DB of 2007) resident of Sidhwan Bet. The name of the person who had run away from the spot was disclosed as Angrej Singh resident of Aale by Hakam Singh (appellant in CRA No. D-929-DB of 2007), who was driver of the truck. Palwinder Singh ASI told both the appellants that he suspected some contraband in the truck and, therefore, the search of the truck is required and he further asked them as to whether they wanted the search of the truck to be conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. 4. Palwinder Singh ASI told both the appellants that he suspected some contraband in the truck and, therefore, the search of the truck is required and he further asked them as to whether they wanted the search of the truck to be conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. 4. Thereupon, both the appellants opted the search of truck to be conducted in the presence of some Gazetted Officer and memo Ex.P15 in this regard was prepared, which was signed by them as also by Jagdish Singh ASI and Sewak Singh, public witness. Thereafter, Palwinder Singh ASI informed Chaman Lal DSP through wireless message and the latter reached at the spot along with his gunmen at about 3.30 a.m. On the arrival of Chaman Lal DSP at the spot, Palwinder Singh ASI disclosed him the facts of the case. Chaman Lal DSP disclosed his identity to both the appellants and asked them as to whether they wanted the search of the truck to be conducted by the police in his presence or any other Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. Both the appellants reposed confidence in Chaman Lal DSP and memo Ex.P7 in this regard was prepared by Chaman Lal DSP, which was signed by them in token of its correctness. Palwinder Singh ASI, Jagdish Singh ASI and Sewak Singh also signed this memo Ex.P7. Thereafter, on the direction of Chaman Lal DSP, Palwinder Singh ASI searched the truck by opening its shutter on the rear side and on search, six bags of poppy straw were found lying in the truck, wherefor, both the appellants failed to produce any licence and permit for keeping those bags in their possession. 5. Later, 250 grams of poppy straw from each bag were drawn as sample and remaining poppy straw of each bag on weighment were found to be 34 kgs 750 grams each. All the six sample parcels and all the bags containing remaining poppy straw weighing 34 kgs 750 grams each were separately sealed by Palwinder Singh ASI with his seal bearing impression ‘PS’ who also prepared sample seal Ex.P8 separately. Seal after use was handed over to Jagdish Singh ASI. Chaman Lal DSP also affixed his seal bearing impression ‘CL’ on all the six parcels, as also, on the six bags containing 34 kgs 750 grams of poppy straw each. He also prepared sample seal Ex.P9. Seal after use was handed over to Jagdish Singh ASI. Chaman Lal DSP also affixed his seal bearing impression ‘CL’ on all the six parcels, as also, on the six bags containing 34 kgs 750 grams of poppy straw each. He also prepared sample seal Ex.P9. Chaman Lal DSP kept his seal with him. Case property ibid was seized vide memo Ex.P10 along with truck bearing registration No. RJ-13GA 0390. Later, Palwinder Singh ASI conducted the personal search of both the appellants and prepared separate memos Ex.P11 in respect of Hakam Singh (appellant in CRA No. D-929-DB of 2007) and Ex.P12 in respect of Kuldeep Singh (appellant in CRA No. D- 791-DB of 2007), which were attested by Chaman Lal DSP, Jagdish Singh ASI and Sewak Singh. 6. Later, Palwinder Singh ASI sent ruqa Ex.P16 to the police station where formal FIR Ex.P17 was recorded by Baldev Singh ASI. Palwinder Singh ASI also prepared rough site plan Ex.P19 of place of recovery. He arrested both the appellants after disclosing them the grounds of arrest vide memo Ex.P20. He also informed the relatives of both the appellants vide memo Ex.P21. He also recorded the statements of the witnesses at the spot. 7. On return to the police station, Palwinder Singh ASI produced both the appellants, as also, case property including truck before Suresh Kumar ASI officiating SHO and incharge of the police station at the relevant time, who questioned both the appellants and verified the facts of the case and affixed his seal bearing impression ‘SK’ on all the parcels, as also, prepared sample seal Ex.P22. He seized the case property vide memo Ex.P23, which was attested by Palwinder Singh ASI. He kept the case property in his custody. 8. Appellants and the case property were produced before the Magistrate by the SHO vide application Ex.P25 and the Court passed order Ex.P26, thereon. Palwinder Singh ASI also seized the registration certificate of the truck mark A vide memo Ex.P24, which was attested by Gurdip Singh HC and Dilbag Singh Constable. Sample parcels were also sent to the Chemical Examiner and the latter vide its report Ex.P27 declared contents, thereof, to be of poppy straw. 9. Palwinder Singh ASI also seized the registration certificate of the truck mark A vide memo Ex.P24, which was attested by Gurdip Singh HC and Dilbag Singh Constable. Sample parcels were also sent to the Chemical Examiner and the latter vide its report Ex.P27 declared contents, thereof, to be of poppy straw. 9. After completion of investigation, Station House Officer of Police Station Dharamkot instituted police report under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C-for short) before the learned Judge, Special Court, Moga to the effect that it appeared that the appellants have committed an offence punishable under Section 15 of the Act. 10. On presentation of police report, copies of documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. were furnished to the appellants and the case was later committed to the Court of Session, where charge under Section 15 of the Act was framed against both the appellants, whereto, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Consequently, prosecution evidence was summoned. 11. At the trial, the prosecution examined Ashok Kumar Photographer as PW-1, Devinder Singh Constable as PW-2, Kulwinder Singh HC as PW-3, Chaman Lal DSP as PW-4, Palwinder Singh ASI as PW-5, Sukhwinder Singh HC as PW-6, Suresh Kumar SI as PW-7, Jagdish Singh ASI as PW-8, Mam Raj as PW-9 and closed the prosecution evidence later, after tendering the report of the Chemical Examiner Ex.P27. 12. After the closure of prosecution evidence, both the appellants (Kuldeep Singh and Hakam Singh) were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein, they denied the allegations of the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication in this case. 13. Hakam Singh (appellant in CRA No. D-929-DB of 2007) gave his own version that he had no custody, control or ownership over the truck in question and the case was foisted upon him. He further stated that he was not driving the truck at any time, which is also not road worthy. He further stated that he was in illegal custody of the police, even prior to the recovery and registration of this false case. 14. Kuldeep Singh (appellant in CRA No. D-791-DB of 2007) also gave his own version that he has been implicated falsely in this case and nothing was recovered from him and that he was not apprehended from the truck containing contraband, as alleged by the prosecution. 15. 14. Kuldeep Singh (appellant in CRA No. D-791-DB of 2007) also gave his own version that he has been implicated falsely in this case and nothing was recovered from him and that he was not apprehended from the truck containing contraband, as alleged by the prosecution. 15. Appellants were called upon to enter in defence and they examined Santa Singh as DW-1 and Mandeep Singh as DW-2 and closed the defence evidence, later. 16. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, convicted and sentenced the appellants, as described in the first paragraph of this judgment. Aggrieved, thereagainst, the appellants, who were accused before the learned trial Court have come up in this appeal with prayer for acceptance, thereof, and for their acquittal of the charge framed against them for the commission of offence punishable under Section 15 of the Act. 17. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent and perused the record of the learned trial Court with their assistance. 18. First of all it is to be seen, as to what the PWs deposed in this case. 19. PW-1 Ashok Kumar Photographer proved the photographs Ex.P3 and P4 and their negatives Ex.P1 and P2 taken by him from the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga. 20. PW-2 Devinder Singh, Constable tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.P5. 21. PW-3 Kulwinder Singh HC also tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.P6. 22. PW-4 Chaman Lal DSP testified that on 26.09.2005 at about 3.00 a.m., Palwinder Singh ASI sent him wireless message about the apprehension of two persons along with truck and, thereupon, he reached at the spot in the area of village Lohgarh on the culvert of canal along with his gunmen, where the police party headed by Palwinder Singh ASI along with the appellants was present. He further testified that Palwinder Singh ASI apprised him about the facts of the case and, thereafter, he disclosed his identity to both the appellants, one after the other and told them, as to whether they wanted their search to be conducted in his presence or in the presence of some other Gazetted Officer or Magistrate; the appellants opted to get the search conducted in his presence and memo Ex.P7 in this regard was prepared and, thereafter, on his direction, Palwinder Singh ASI conducted the search of the truck bearing registration No. RJ-13GA 0390, on whose opening of shutter on the rear side, six bags of poppy straw were found lying in the truck, wherefor, both the appellants failed to produce any licence or permit, for keeping those in their possession. 23. PW-4 Chaman Lal DSP further testified that a sample of 250 grams from each bag was taken out and the remaining contents of the each bag were found to be 34 kgs 750 grams and all the six sample parcels, as also, the six bags containing remaining poppy straw were separately sealed by the Investigating Officer with his seal bearing impression ‘PS’ and he (PW-4) also affixed his seal bearing impression ‘CL’ on all the parcels including the sample seal. He also testified that the sample seal Ex.P8 was prepared by the Investigating Officer and his sample seal Ex.P9 was also prepared. He further testified that he retained his own seal with him and Palwinder Singh ASI handed over his seal to Jagdish Singh ASI. He further testified that the case property along with truck was seized vide memo Ex.P10. He also testified that personal search memo Ex.P11 of Hakam Singh (appellant in CRA No. D-929-DB of 2007) was prepared, while personal search memo Ex.P12 of Kuldeep Singh (appellant in CRA No. D-791-DB of 2007) was prepared and both the appellants signed their respective memos. He also testified that his statement was recorded and he also received special report Ex.P13 in this regard from Suresh Kumar ASI and he made endorsement Ex.P14, thereon. 24. PW-5 Palwinder Singh ASI deposed on the line of investigation, which has been reproduced in the earlier parts of this judgment. 25. PW-6 Sukhwinder Singh HC testified that on 27.09.2005, he was posted as Assistant Reader to DSP Dharamkot. 24. PW-5 Palwinder Singh ASI deposed on the line of investigation, which has been reproduced in the earlier parts of this judgment. 25. PW-6 Sukhwinder Singh HC testified that on 27.09.2005, he was posted as Assistant Reader to DSP Dharamkot. He further testified that he identified the signatures of Chaman Lal DSP on the documents Ex.P13 and P14. 26. PW-7 Suresh Kumar SI testified that on 26.09.2005, he was posted at Police Station Dharamkot and on that day, Palwinder Singh ASI produced both the appellants, as also, the case property of this case before him and he affixed his own seal bearing impression ‘SK’, thereon, and he seized that case property vide memo Ex.P23 and later he produced both the appellants, as also, the case property in the Court vide application Ex.P25, whereon, latter, passed order Ex.P26. He further testified that on the same day, case property was deposited with the MHC and, so long as, it remained in his possession, it remained intact. He further testified that he produced the case property before Illaqa Magistrate for preparation of inventory vide application Ex.P28. He further testified that from six sealed parcels, the Court had drawn representative samples of 250 grams each and remaining case property was sealed by the Magistrate with the seal bearing impression ‘SJIC’ and photographer was called at that time, who took the photographs. He further testified that the seal was brought by the Nazar of the Court. He proved the orders of the Court Exs.P29 and P30. He also proved six samples drawn by the Court Exs.MO1 to MO6. 27. PW-8 Jagdish Singh ASI happened to be present at the time of recovery and he deposed on the lines of investigation, regarding recovery of the poppy straw from both the appellants. 28. PW-9 Mam Raj testified that truck bearing registration No. RJ-13GA 0390 was registered in the name of Angrej Singh s/o Darshan Singh resident of Allewala, District Ferozepur. He proved the registration certificate Ex.P31 of the truck ibid. 29. 28. PW-9 Mam Raj testified that truck bearing registration No. RJ-13GA 0390 was registered in the name of Angrej Singh s/o Darshan Singh resident of Allewala, District Ferozepur. He proved the registration certificate Ex.P31 of the truck ibid. 29. DW-1 Santa Singh testified that Kuldeep Singh (appellant in CRA No. D-791-DB of 2007) is a tailor by profession at village Sidhwan Bet, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana and on 25.09.2005, in the evening, he received message at 7.00 p.m. that Kuldeep Singh (appellant) has been apprehended by the police from village Manjli; thereupon, he along with Panch and Ex-Panch went to the Police Station Dharamkot, on 26.09.2005 to meet the SHO and the latter, advised him to meet the DSP and then they met the DSP, who informed them that Kuldeep Singh (appellant) is already involved in a case of poppy husk and he cannot do anything about this. He also testified that 2-3 persons of village Manjli also accompanied him. He, further testified that Kuldeep Singh (appellant) does not indulge in such like activities. 30. DW-2 Mandeep Singh testified that about 1-3/4 years ago, 4/5 persons in plain clothes, came to village Ramgarh; firstly they searched their house and then they took his father Hakam Singh (appellant in CRA No. D-929-DB of 2007) in the evening time with them, at about 6/7.00 p.m. He further testified that no recovery was effected from their house and those plain clothes men told them to come to Police Station Dharamkot on the next day and in the morning, they went there and came to know that the case has been registered against Hakam Singh (appellant). 31. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the latter, were not in conscious possession of the case property of the alleged bags of poppy straw. They also contended that Kuldeep Singh (appellant) has no connection with the truck bearing registration No. RJ-13GA 0390. They also contended that in examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., no question was put to the appellants about their being in conscious possession of the alleged bags containing poppy straw. They also contended that Kuldeep Singh (appellant) has no connection with the truck bearing registration No. RJ-13GA 0390. They also contended that in examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., no question was put to the appellants about their being in conscious possession of the alleged bags containing poppy straw. They also contended that the case property was not produced before the SHO and the case property was only produced on return to the police station by Palwinder Singh ASI with Suresh Kumar ASI, who in candid words did not depose that he was acting as SHO of the police station at the relevant time and, therefore, there was non-compliance of Section 55 of the Act and benefit of non-compliance, thereon, is required to be given to both the appellants. 32. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent contended that the appellants were rightly convicted and sentenced by the learned Judge, Special Court, Moga vide its impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which do not suffer from any illegality or impropriety and, therefore, may be upheld and affirmed. 33. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent. We have seen the testimony of PW-7 Suresh Kumar, who no where testified that, he was acting as SHO of the police station, on the day of alleged production of case property of this case. That being so, it is a case of non-compliance of provisions of Section 55 of the Act, which enjoins upon Investigating Officer to produce the case property before the Incharge of the police station. In order to prove the compliance of Section 55 of the Act, it was required for the prosecution to lead evidence that Suresh Kumar (PW-7) was acting as SHO of the police station at the time of alleged production of the case property of this case before him by Palwinder Singh ASI (PW-5). 34. In the absence of such evidence, it must, follow that provisions of Section 55 of the Act were not complied with by the Investigating Officer and benefit in this regard must go to the appellants. 35. Learned counsel for the appellants rightly contended that the latter, were not proved to be in conscious possession of the alleged bags containing poppy straw. 35. Learned counsel for the appellants rightly contended that the latter, were not proved to be in conscious possession of the alleged bags containing poppy straw. It is the case of the respondent that Hakam Singh (appellant in CRA No. D-929-DB of 2007) was driving the truck bearing registration No. RJ-13GA 0390 at the time of alleged occurrence. There is no evidence on the record that Hakam Singh (appellant) is a truck driver by profession. No investigation was made in this case by the respondent, as to whether Hakam Singh (appellant) was driver by profession or not. Even, no suggestion was put to Mandeep Singh (DW-2) that Hakam Singh (appellant) is a truck driver by profession. Even, it was not suggested to Mandeep Singh (DW-2) during cross-examination that Hakam Singh (appellant) was employed as a driver by Angrej Singh on his truck bearing registration No. RJ-13GA 0390. 36. Even the driving licence of the appellant (Hakam Singh) was not seized by the Investigating Officer at the time of his alleged arrest. No investigation was made to this effect, as to whether he was holding a valid and effective driving licence for driving the truck. One thing is very much certain that driving licence was not recovered either from the possession of the appellant (Hakam Singh) or from the search of truck bearing registration No. RJ-13GA 0390. 37. It is a case where the appellant (Hakam Singh) was not holding any driving licence at the time of his alleged arrest. Even, no further investigation was made about the driving licence of the appellant (Hakam Singh). If, he was not holding licence at the time of his alleged arrest, he might have kept that at his house. So, further investigation reveals that the same was not recovered, even from his house. When, it has not been proved on the record that Hakam Singh (appellant) was holding a valid and effective driving licence for driving the truck, then how, Angrej Singh, owner of the truck bearing registration No. RJ-13GA 0390 could employ him as a driver on his truck. 38. No further evidence has been collected by the Investigating Officer after the arrest of Hakam Singh (appellant) that the latter was employed by Angrej Singh, as a driver on the truck bearing registration No. RJ-13GA 0390. 38. No further evidence has been collected by the Investigating Officer after the arrest of Hakam Singh (appellant) that the latter was employed by Angrej Singh, as a driver on the truck bearing registration No. RJ-13GA 0390. It has also not been investigated as to what was his salary per month being a driver on the truck and who was the middle man in getting him engaged in this employment with Angrej Singh. In the absence of such evidence, it is arduous to hold that Hakam Singh (appellant) at the relevant time was driving the truck bearing registration No. RJ-13GA 0390. 39. Kuldeep Singh (appellant in CRA No. D-791-DB of 2007) was also not sitting on the bags containing poppy straw. He was allegedly sitting by the side of driver seat. That being so, he could not be held to be in conscious possession of the bags containing poppy straw. The case of the prosecution could be held to be proved, if, both the appellants were knowing full well that the contents of the bags are poppy straw and they were consciously sitting, thereon. 40. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab, 2002 SCC (Criminal) 1769, set aside the conviction of the accused by holding that it is not proved that accused had custody and control of bags. In this case, the accused were sitting on 16 bags containing poppy husk in a truck. It was held that the persons who were merely sitting on the bags in the absence of proof of anything more, cannot be presumed to be in possession of the goods. It was held that at the best, they may be abettors, but, there is no such charge here. It was held that their silence and failure to explain the circumstances in which they were travelling in the vehicle at the odd hours, is one of the strong circumstance that can be put against them. A case of drawing presumption under Section 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 Section 313 Cr.P.C., not even a question was asked that they were the persons in possession of poppy husk placed in the vehicle. A case of drawing presumption under Section 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 Section 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. It was held that no question was asked about the possession of goods. It was held that trial Court invoked the presumption under Section 54 of the Act without addressing itself to the question of possession. 41. Benefit of the aforementioned judgment must be given to the appellants, as they were not found sitting on the bags containing poppy straw and, therefore, it could not be presumed that they were in conscious possession, thereof. They could be held to be in conscious possession of the bags containing poppy straw, if, they would have been owners of the truck. As already held, even their presence on the truck has not been proved beyond doubt. Both the appellants do not belong to the same place. They were also not involved earlier in such like illegal activitiy. 42. Kuldeep Singh (appellant) is a tailor by profession, as can be seen from the testimony of Santa Singh (DW-1). The learned trial Court did not comment upon the evidence of Santa Singh (DW-1), which in other words was not repelled by the learned trial Court. So, Kuldeep Singh (appellant), who is a tailor by profession, had no occasion to be in truck in question at the time of its alleged interception by the police. 43. Reliance can also be placed upon “Raj Kumar v. State of Punjab and Hawa Singh v. State of Punjab, 2005 (1) RCR (Criminal) 70; wherein, the statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, but no question was asked that they were in conscious possession of the opium and their conviction was set aside. 44. 43. Reliance can also be placed upon “Raj Kumar v. State of Punjab and Hawa Singh v. State of Punjab, 2005 (1) RCR (Criminal) 70; wherein, the statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, but no question was asked that they were in conscious possession of the opium and their conviction was set aside. 44. In the case in hand, also no question was put to the appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C., about their being in conscious possession of the poppy straw and that question was very much relevant, especially, when it is the case of the respondent that they were only sitting in the driver cabin of the truck and they were not sitting on the bags containing poppy straw. 45. In the judgment (supra) two accused were travelling in Jeep. A bag containing opium recovered, which was lying in between them on seat of jeep. Prosecution failed to prove who was in conscious possession and conviction was set aside. The case of the appellants is on better footing, as the bags containing poppy straw were not lying in the cabin of the truck where they were sitting. So, in these circumstances, neither the presumption, under Section 35 of the Act nor under Section 54 of the Act would be attracted against the appellants. 46. In the case of “Kashmir Singh v. State of Punjab and Karam Singh v. State of Punjab, 2006 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477, passed by this Court, it was held that in a case of recovery of contraband from possession of accused, there is presumption that accused was in its conscious possession. This presumption, however, will not apply unless an opportunity is given to the accused to rebut and explain the presumption by putting question under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 47. So, the presumption under Sections 35 and 54 of the Act cannot be used against the appellant, as during their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., no question was put to them about their being in conscious possession of the bags containing poppy straw. 48. In the case of “Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab, 2005 (4) RCR (Criminal) 300; this Court acquitted the accused, who was found sitting in a trolley containing 20 gunny bags of poppy husk, as there was no evidence that he was actually owner of tractor or trolley and he was not even driver also. 48. In the case of “Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab, 2005 (4) RCR (Criminal) 300; this Court acquitted the accused, who was found sitting in a trolley containing 20 gunny bags of poppy husk, as there was no evidence that he was actually owner of tractor or trolley and he was not even driver also. It was held that it cannot be inferred that accused was exercising the possessory right over contraband. 49. The judgment (supra) is also applicable in this case to accord benefit of doubt to the appellants, as they were not the owners of the truck which contained bags of poppy straw. They were not also proved to be drivers by profession and, therefore, they were also could not be the drivers of the truck. They could be held to be in possession of the bags containing poppy straw, if, they had been owning the truck bearing registration No. RJ-13GA 0390, wherein, they were allegedly travelling at the time of their arrest. 50. In these circumstances, it must, follow that the learned trial Court wrongly convicted and sentenced the appellants vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which must be set aside. 51. Resultantly, both the appeals succeed and are, hereby allowed; impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charge framed against them, by according them benefit of doubt.