JUDGMENT 1. - The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant Buta Singh against the judgment dated 24.6.2013 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Rajgarh in Special Sessions Case No. 1/2010 (4/2008) (6/2006) whereby he was convicted for the offence under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act and was sentenced to undergo ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. 2. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to further undergo one year's simple imprisonment. 3. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the Head Constable Jai Singh, who was posted as the Incharge of the Check Post Gothiya, stopped and checked a truck bearing Registration No. MP07-G7967. The driver of the truck upon enquiry could not show the challan permit etc. 4. He was asked to bring the documents upon which he went towards the truck under the pretext of searching the documents in the vehicle. Thereafter, instead of returning back, he escaped abandoning the vehicle at the spot. These events took place at 12:30 AM in the night. When the truck driver did not return back till late in the morning, feeling suspicious, the Head Constable informed Shri Arjun Singh, Circle Officer, Rajgarh over telephone at 2:30 PM on 12.12.2005 on which he reached at the check post. He along with the other Police Officers posted at the Check Post undertook search of the vehicle bearing No. MP07 G 7967 and found some white powder packed in gunny bags loaded inside it. On a closer search of the truck, it was found that on the back, front and sides of the truck, the number plates bearing registration No. MP07 G 7967 were affixed while two number plates bearing a different registration No. HR37A- 6121 were found in the truck's cabin. The registration documents of the vehicle were also suspicious because the engine number and the chassis number did not match. A service book was recovered from the truck in which the name of the purchaser was mentioned as Buta Singh s/o Keemat Singh resident of Ligrai Bhatinda whereas in the duplicate registration certificate of the vehicle, the name of the owner was mentioned as Magar Singh S/o Jora Singh resident of Tipinagar, Gwalior. The bilti of the goods lying in the vehicle was for china clay powder. The bilti of the goods lying in the vehicle was for china clay powder. The bags of the china clay were unloaded from the truck and concealed under them, contraband poppy straw packed in 41 gunny bags was found. On the weighment being done, it was found that a total of 12 quintals and 58 Kilograms of Poppy straw was loaded in the truck. The samples of poppy straw were taken out from the gunny bags. The poppy straw as well as the truck were seized. Thereafter, an FIR No. 348/05 for the offence under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act was registered and investigation commenced. After completion of the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the appellant for the aforesaid offence. The trial Court framed charge against the appellant for the offence under Section 8/15 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The charge framed against the appellant is reproduced herein under:- " fnukad 12-12-2005 dks lka; 4-15 ih0,e0 ij jktx<+ ls fglkj jksM+ ij xksfB;k pSd iksLV ij vkids dCts ds V~d ,e0ih0 07 th&7967 ls vtqZuflag o`rkf/kdkjh jktx<+ us 41 cksfj;ksa esa Hkjk gqvk dqy 15-58 fDoaVy MksMk iksLr pwjk ikmMj cjker fd;kA bl izdkj vkius mDr MksMkz iksLr pwjk fcuk ykblsal voS/k :i ls vius dCts eas j[kdj /kkjk 8@15 ,u0Mh0ih0,l0 ,DV ds rgr n.Muh; vijk/k fd;k tks esjs izlaKku eas gSA " 5. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined twenty one witnesses in support of its case. The appellant, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the allegations of the prosecution and submitted that he was not the registered owner of the vehicle and was not driving the same at the relevant time. The learned trial Judge at the conclusion of the trial proceeded to hold the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act and sentenced him as above. Hence this appeal. 6. Shri Vikas Bijarnia, learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is no material on the record of the case to connect the appellant with the alleged crime. He submitted that the appellant has been convicted by the learned trial Judge holding him to be in control of the vehicle in question and also for being the owner thereof. 7. Shri Vikas Bijarnia, learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is no material on the record of the case to connect the appellant with the alleged crime. He submitted that the appellant has been convicted by the learned trial Judge holding him to be in control of the vehicle in question and also for being the owner thereof. 7. Learned counsel urged that the registration certificate of the vehicle stood in the name of Magar Singh and as such, the appellant cannot be said to be the owner of the vehicle. He further submitted that no charge for the offence under Section 8/25 of the NDPS Act was framed against the appellant. He further urged that none of the prosecution witnesses identified the appellant as the person who was driving the vehicle. Thus, it was prayed that the appellant deserves to be acquitted in this case. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. He contended that the purchase documents bearing the appellant's name were recovered from the truck at the time of seizure and thus, the appellant was the only person having control over the vehicle in question. It was thus, submitted that the trial Judge rightly convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act. 9. The counsel for the appellant has limited his arguments to the issue regarding identity of the accused at the time when the truck was stopped by the Police Officers on 12.12.2005 at 12:30 AM. From a perusal of the judgment impugned, it is evident that the learned trial Judge has given much credence to the fact that the documents of the truck's ownership stand in the appellant's name. However, the said fact would be significant only if the appellant was charged for the offence under Section 8/25 of the NDPS Act. Section 25 of the NDPS Act reads as below:- "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." 10. Admittedly, no charge for the aforesaid offence was framed against the appellant. Thus, the efforts made by the prosecution before the learned trial Judge to link the appellant as the person in control of the vehicle in question loose significance. All the prosecution's efforts were an exercise in futility in absence of a charge under Section 8/25 of the N.D.P.S. Act. That apart, the admitted fact is that the registration certificate of the truck stood in the name of one Magar Singh. This Court has to remain alive to Section 2(60) of the Motor Vehicles Act as per which, the registered owner of the motor vehicle can only be called its owner. 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ganga Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 2000 SC 449 has held that as per Section 2(60) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the owner of vehicle can only be the person in whose name the registration certificate stands. Admittedly, as the vehicle was registered in Magar Singh's name, the learned trial Judge committed a grave error in holding that the appellant was the owner and the person in control of the vehicle in question. Even if the documents depicting one Buta Singh to be the person who purchased the vehicle are taken note of, then too, there is a grave discrepancy regarding the identity because the address mentioned in the Buta Singh's service book is appellant's admitted address. 12. While as per the service book, the detail of the owner is given as Buta Singh s/o Keemat Singh, V.P.O. Ligrai, Bhatinda, on the other hand, as per the charge-sheet, the appellant's address is given as Lehra Khana, P.S. Nathana, District Bhatinda. The prosecution could have examined Magar Singh to prove that despite he being the registered owner of the truck, it was some how in the appellant's possession and control. No such evidence was led at the trial. 13. The prosecution could have examined Magar Singh to prove that despite he being the registered owner of the truck, it was some how in the appellant's possession and control. No such evidence was led at the trial. 13. In this view of the matter, this court of the opinion that neither the prosecution has been able to prove that the vehicle seized in the instant case was owned by the appellant nor would the said fact be significant looking to the failure of the prosecution to propose a charge under Section 8/25 of the NDPS Act against the appellant Now this Court has to examine as to whether the prosecution could prove that the appellant was driving the truck at the relevant time. Four witnesses were examined by the prosecution who could possibly have identified the appellant as the person who was driving the truck when it was seized whilst carrying contraband poppy straw. PW1-Jai Singh, PW-9 Kuldeep, PW-10 Babu Lal and PW-11 Leelu Ram were Police Constables posted at the check post Godhiya. They stopped the truck in the night of 12.12.2005. 14. All these witnesses upon being examined at the trial stated that they could not identify the appellant as being the person who was driving the vehicle at the time when it was stopped at the Godhiya post. Thus, there is no evidence on the record of the case to show that the appellant was driving the vehicle from which the poppy straw was recovered. 15. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the appellant's conviction for the offence under Section 8/15 of the N.D.P.S. Act for transporting contraband poppy straw cannot be sustained. 16. As a upshot of the above discussion, the appeal deserves acceptance and is hereby accepted and the appellant's conviction as recorded by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Rajgarh by the judgment dated 24.6.2013 is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge. He is in custody. He shall be set at liberty forthwith if not wanted in any other case.Appeal Allowed. *******