JUDGMENT Mrs. Sabina, J.: - Vide this judgment, the above mentioned two appeals would be disposed of as these have arisen out of the same FIR. 2. Sub Inspector Mandeep Singh sent a ruqa on 16.7.2002 at 3.00 A.M. to Police Station Shahkot stating therein that he was present at T-point, Kotli Gajran near railway crossing Malsian in connection with patrolling and checking of suspicious persons. He received a secret information that Jaswinder Singh alias Dulla son of Joginder Singh, Sital Singh son of Joginder Singh alias Dulla and one more person known as Chacha and 3-4 more persons were travelling in Canter No. PB-08-R-8715 driven by Paramjit Singh, loaded with heavy quantity of poppy heads, from village Kangna towards the side of Malsian. In case, a nakabandi was held then heavy quantity of poppy heads could be recovered from the canter. 3. On the basis of ruqa (Ex.PA), formal FIR No. 162 dated 16.7.2002 was registered at Police Station Shahkot at 3.55 A.M. under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (‘Act’ for short). 4. Sub Inspector Mandeep Singh then requested Sarwan Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shahkot to reach the Bus Stand, Malsian. At the Bus Stand, Malsian, he met Deputy Superintendent of Police Sarwan Singh and PW Balbir Singh. When they were going from Malsian to Kangna and had covered a distance of two kilometers, canter No. PB-08-R-8715 was seen coming from Kangna side. The said canter was signaled to stop. Jaswinder Singh, Sital Singh and Makhan (Chacha) who were sitting in the cabin of the canter managed to escape. 2-3 more persons who were sitting in the canter also managed to run away. Paramjit Singh, who was driving the canter, was apprehended at the spot. Deputy Superintendent of Police Sarwan Singh introduced himself to Paramjit Singh. An offer was made to Paramjit Singh that he had a right to get the canter searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or a Magistrate as they suspected some narcotic substance in it. Paramjit Singh reposed confidence in Deputy Superintendent of Police. Consent memo Ex.PB was prepared in this regard. Thereafter, under the supervision of Deputy Superintendent of Police Sarwan Singh, the canter was searched. It was found to be loaded with 35 bags of powder of chips. After lifting yellow tarpaulin, it was found that 60 stitched bags were lying underneath it. Paramjit Singh reposed confidence in Deputy Superintendent of Police. Consent memo Ex.PB was prepared in this regard. Thereafter, under the supervision of Deputy Superintendent of Police Sarwan Singh, the canter was searched. It was found to be loaded with 35 bags of powder of chips. After lifting yellow tarpaulin, it was found that 60 stitched bags were lying underneath it. On opening the said bags, it was found that they contained poppy husk. From each bag, sample of 250 grams was separated and they were made into sealed parcels. The remaining poppy husk on weighment in each bag came to 37.750 kgs. The bags were numbered as 1 to 60. The bags of poppy husk were sealed with seal bearing impressions ‘MS’ and ‘SS’. Seal after use was handed over by Sub Inspector Mandeep Singh to Assistant Sub Inspector Sukhjit Singh whereas Deputy Superintendent of Police retained the seal with himself. The sample parcels as well as the bags of poppy husk, tarpaulin, canter and 35 bags of chips powder were taken in possession. Personal search memo of accused Paramjit Singh was prepared. Thereafter, accused Paramjit Singh along with the case property was produced before the Area Magistrate at Nakodar. 5. On return to the police station, Sub Inspector Mandeep Singh deposited the case property with MHC Sukhjit Singh. 6. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities challan was presented against accused Paramjit Singh. The other accused were declared proclaimed offenders. However, later on supplementary challans were presented against the other three accused. Charge was framed against all the appellants for commission of the offence under Section 15 of the Act by the trial court on 17.3.2008. 7. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 10 witnesses during trial. 8. After the close of prosecution evidence, appellant Makhan Singh alias Chacha when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’ for short) pleaded as under:- “I am innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. In the FIR the word ‘Chacha’ was mentioned and the police has falsely implicated me. No recovery has been effected from me. The police have concocted a false story of the present recovery.” 9. Appellant Paramjit Singh when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., pleaded as under:- “I am innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. In the FIR the word ‘Chacha’ was mentioned and the police has falsely implicated me. No recovery has been effected from me. The police have concocted a false story of the present recovery.” 9. Appellant Paramjit Singh when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., pleaded as under:- “I am innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. I was working with Jasbir Singh, Manager, Patiala Carriers near Shingar Cinema, Ludhiana as a driver of his vehicle in the month of July, 2002. the vehicle of Jasbir Singh required major repairs and the same was given with agency for repair. Thus, I was free. Accused Sital Singh and his father Jaswinder Singh alias Dulla had visited my house in Gurnam Nagar saying that they were sent by Narinder Singh driver of Phillaur who was known to me. Both these accused have stated to me that they were to bring feed from Rajasthan/Indore to Amritsar and they required my services as a driver. They had also agreed to pay me Rs. 200/- daily besides meals etc. I had agreed to the proposal and had accompanied them to 10.7.2002 as a driver on the canter No. PB08-R-8715. Accused jaswinder Singh, Sital Singh and Makhan Singh alias Chacha accused had traveled by sitting by my side and we had reached at a distance of about 12 kms. Short of Bhilwara (Rajasthan) at a hotel of one Babu Ram. Sital Singh and his father Jaswinder Singh alias Dulla asked me to stay at hotel and they will take him on back journey after loading the goods on the canter. I had stayed at the hotel on 11th, 12th and 13th July, 2002. On the back journey, I was taken from that hotel by the accused on the night of 14.7.2002 at about 9 P.M. The canter was already loaded and I was not aware of its contents. I had started from that hotel as a driver of the canter and accused Jaswinder Singh, Sital Singh and Makhan Singh alias Chacha were sitting by my side on the front seat and I was driving the canter. Accused jaswinder Singh was having bilti of goods from Indore to Amritsar. The vehicle was stopped at Shambu barrier and bilti was produced at the barrier when the canter was allowed to enter into Punjab. Accused jaswinder Singh was having bilti of goods from Indore to Amritsar. The vehicle was stopped at Shambu barrier and bilti was produced at the barrier when the canter was allowed to enter into Punjab. Thereafter, on 15.7.2002 the canter was stopped by the Incharge Traffic Staff at Rajpura and it was challaned by the Traffic staff under the Motor Vehicle Act. The Inspector had taken the RC of the Canter at the time of its challan and the same was attached with the challan. The permits of the canter in the name of Sital Singh accused. We had stopped at Sirhind and also near Nakodar where meals were taken on the night of 15/16.7.2002 we were stopped by the police. I did not try to run from the vehicle as I was having no knowledge of the contents of the vehicle. Moreover, the biulti of the goods was of the feed. Accused Jaswinder Singh, Sital Singh and Makhan Singh alias Chacha managed to escape from the spot. I was arrested by the police. I had told the police that I am totally innocent having no knowledge about the contents of the vehicle but nobody listened to me. I was confined to Central Jail, Jalandhar where I was got assaulted by the persons of Jaswinder Singh and Sital Singh. Somobdy had also obtained my signatures on blank papers in jail. I made representations before the trial court as well as before the Inspecting Judge who had visited the jail that I am totally innocent in this case but nobody listened to me. When I was engaged as a driver by Jaswinder Singh and Sital Singh accused, my father Kashmir Singh and mother Gian Kaur were present in the house. I had moved applications that my life is in danger in Central Jail Jalandhar, therefore, I was transferred to Central Jail, Ludhiana where I am confined. I have no connection with the recovered poppy husk.” 10. Appellant Sital Singh when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., pleaded as under:- “I am innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. My father Jaswinder Singh was admitted in Sodhi Hospital Malerkotla and I was there to look after him. I have no connection with the alleged recovery nor I was present at the place of recovery. Even investigation was conducted by the crime branch which had declared me innocent. My father Jaswinder Singh was admitted in Sodhi Hospital Malerkotla and I was there to look after him. I have no connection with the alleged recovery nor I was present at the place of recovery. Even investigation was conducted by the crime branch which had declared me innocent. Police has concocted a story of this false recovery.” 11. Appellant Jaswinder Singh when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., pleaded as under:- “I am innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. I was admitted in Sodhi Hospital, Malerkotla and my son Sital Singh was there to look after me. I have no connection with the alleged recovery nor I was present at the place of recovery. Even investigation was conducted by the crime branch which had declared me innocent. Police has concocted a story of this false recovery.” 12. The appellants examined seven witnesses in their defence. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case. The appellants had been falsely involved in this case. Appellant Jaswinder Singh had suffered a fracture on his ankle and Plaster of Paris cast had been applied on his leg and hence, there was no occasion for him to have been present at the spot or to have managed to run away from the spot as alleged by the prosecution. Sital Singh son of Jaswainder Singh was taking care of his father at the relevant time on account of fracture suffered by him. During investigation, appellants Sital Singh and Jaswinder Singh were found innocent. Makhan Singh appellant had been falsely described as Chacha. In fact, there was no proper identification qua the said three appellants and they had been falsely involved in the case. So far as appellant Parmajit Singh is concerned, he was not employed as a driver of the canter in question. Rather, Paramjit Singh had been employed as a driver of canter No. HR-38D-2151. 14. Learned state counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that prosecution had been successful in proving its case. The appellants were duly named in the ruqa. Appellant Paramjit Singh was apprehended at the spot whereas appellant Chacha alias Makhan Singh, Sital Singh and Jaswinder Singh had managed to run away from the spot. Sital Singh was the owner of the canter in question. 15. The appellants were duly named in the ruqa. Appellant Paramjit Singh was apprehended at the spot whereas appellant Chacha alias Makhan Singh, Sital Singh and Jaswinder Singh had managed to run away from the spot. Sital Singh was the owner of the canter in question. 15. PW-4 Deputy Superintendent of Police Mandeep Singh (at the relevant time Sub Inspector), while appearing in the witness box, has deposed as per the prosecution story. His version is corroborated by PW-6 Sub Inspector Sukhjit Singh and PW-7 Sarwan Singh Assistant Commandant (at the relevant time Deputy Superintendent of Police). 16. PW-5 Head Constable Sukhjit Singh deposed that on 16.7.2002 the case property was handed over to him by Station House Officer Mandeep Singh duly sealed with seal bearing impressions ‘MS’ and ‘SS’. On 7.8.2002, he had handed over 60 samples duly sealed to Constable Manjit Singh for depositing the same with Chemical Examiner, Punjab, Chandigarh. After doing the needful, Constable Manjit Singh had handed over the receipt to him. 17. PW-3 Head Constable Manjit Singh deposed that on 7.8.2002 he had been handed over 60 samples duly sealed with seals bearing impressions ‘MS’ and ‘SS’ by Head Constable Sukhjit Singh for depositing the same in the office of Chemical Examiner, Chandigarh. 18. PW-1 Charanjit Kaur deposed that vehicle bearing No. PB-08-R-8715 was registered in the name of Sital Singh son of Jaswinder Singh. 19. Thus, in the present case 60 bags of poppy husk were recovered from canter No. PB-08-R-8715 owned by appellant Sital Singh. Appellant Paramjit Singh was apprehended at the spot on 16.7.2002 whereas the other appellants i.e. Jaswinder Singh, Sital Singh and Makhan Singh were not arrested at the spot. As per the prosecution case, the said appellants had managed to run away from the spot. 20. DW-3 Dr. Gurmeet Singh Sodhi has deposed that Jaswinder Singh was suffering from diabetes mellitus and fracture of lower end of fibula bone and sprain right ankle. He was advised rest from 13.7.2002 to 27.7.2002. A plaster was applied on his right ankle for three weeks w.e.f. 13.7.2002. He proved the certificate Ex.DA issued by him. He also proved the discharge certificate dated 27.7.2002 (Ex.DC) issued by him. A perusal of Ex.DA reveals that the same was issued by DW-3 on 27.7.2002. Ex. DA and Ex. DC were taken in custody by the inquiry officer during investigation. He proved the certificate Ex.DA issued by him. He also proved the discharge certificate dated 27.7.2002 (Ex.DC) issued by him. A perusal of Ex.DA reveals that the same was issued by DW-3 on 27.7.2002. Ex. DA and Ex. DC were taken in custody by the inquiry officer during investigation. Apparently, due to this reason, Jaswinder Singh was declared innocent by DW-4 Bachan Singh Randhawa. The said witness has deposed that during his inquiry he had found Jaswinder Singh alias Dulla and his son Sital Singh innocent. DW-7 Victor Kumar proved Ex.DW7/A. As per the same, Jaswinder Singh son of Joginder Singh had visited Civil Hospital, Ludhiana as OPD patient on 12.7.2002. All these facts lead to the inference that the possibility that appellant Jaswinder Singh might have been falsely involved in this case cannot be ruled out. Appellant Jaswinder Singh had suffered a fracture of his right leg and the same was plastered by DW-3. Even in the court, appellant Jaswinder Singh had appeared on a wheel chair as is evident from the cross examination of PW-6 Sub Inspector Sukhjit Singh. In these circumstances, it was not possible for the said appellant to have managed to run away from the spot in the presence of six police officials. 21. So far as appellant Sital Singh is concerned, the possibility that he might have been falsely involved in this case being owner of the canter in question cannot be ruled out. DW-4 had also concluded in his inquiry report Ex. DD that Sital Singh was innocent and was in fact, present with his father for getting him treated qua fracture suffered by him. 22. So far as appellant Makhan Singh alias Chacha is concerned, he has only been described as Chacha in the ruqa. The said accused was not apprehended at the spot although the police party consisted of six police officials. The possibility that the said appellant might have been falsely involved in this case cannot be ruled out. 23. So far as appellant Paramjit Singh is concerned, he was apprehended at the spot and was found in possession of 60 bags of poppy husk. The possibility that the said appellant might have been falsely involved in this case cannot be ruled out. 23. So far as appellant Paramjit Singh is concerned, he was apprehended at the spot and was found in possession of 60 bags of poppy husk. The said appellant has taken up the plea that he was working with Jasbir Singh, Manager, Patiala Carriers and on the day of occurrence, he had accompanied Sital Singh and others on canter No. PB-08-R-8715 as on that day, the truck on which he was employed was out of order. He had no concern with the poppy husk recovered from the truck. The canter had already been loaded when he was handed over the same for driving it from Indore to Amritsar. As per this appellant, the other appellants were also accompanying him in the canter. Further, the case of appellant Paramjit Singh is that appellants Jaswinder Singh, Sital Singh and Makhan Singh alias Chacha had managed to run away from the spot. In order to substantiate his this plea, appellant Paramjit Singh as examined DW-1 Jasbir Singh and DW-2 Kashmir Singh. From the cross examination of DW-2 Kashmir Singh, father of appellant Paramjit Singh, it is evident that the said appellant had run away from the hospital in this case and criminal case was registered against him in this regard. He also admitted that one more case under the Act was pending against him but he had been acquitted in the said case. Thus, so far as appellant Paramjit Singh is concerned, he has admitted that he was driving the canter in question on the day of recovery but he has taken the plea that he was ignorant of the fact that the canter in question was loaded with poppy husk. The said plea of appellant Paramjit Singh is liable to be disbelieved as he was apprehended at the spot driving the canter which was loaded with 60 bags of poppy husk. The said appellant was produced before the Magistrate after the recovery along with the case property. Since appellant Paramjit Singh was driving the canter in question at the time of recovery, the presumption arises that he was in conscious possession of the contraband. Further the said appellant has tried to shift the onus on his co-accused whereas their presence at the spot is doubtful. 24. Since appellant Paramjit Singh was driving the canter in question at the time of recovery, the presumption arises that he was in conscious possession of the contraband. Further the said appellant has tried to shift the onus on his co-accused whereas their presence at the spot is doubtful. 24. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal No. 614-DB of 2008 is allowed. The appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them. So far as Criminal Appeal No. 882-DB of 2008 is concerned, the same is partly allowed. The conviction of appellant Paramjit Singh under Section 15 of the Act is maintained. However, his sentence is reduced from rigorous imprisonment of 15 years to rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and the sentence qua fine is reduced from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. ---------0.B.S.0------------