Judgment : 1. Legal acceptability of the judgment and order dated 8.9.2003, rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital, in Sessions Trial No.133-A of 1997, has been challenged before this Court. The said judgment was rendered by learned Judge convicting the appellant Mohd. Ayub for the offence of Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act). 2. Appellant/accused was found in possession of 160 kilograms of Ganja which was packed in 20 bags. He was driving Jeep No.UP02-C-3633. At the time of checking, 8 bags were kept inside the back portion of Jeep while 4 bags were on its roof. Beside the appellant, two persons, namely, Punia and Ms. Vidya, were also sitting therein. In fact, these all bags, containing contraband goods, were of those two aforenamed persons but the appellant was also charge-sheeted by the police for the reason that at the relevant time, he was driving the vehicle. 3. Prosecution has proved the conscious possession of the appellant for the reason that he charged fare from those two persons, namely, Punia and Ms. Vidya, above than normal. 4. Learned counsel has argued that even if the prosecution story is believed to be true regarding the recovery of contraband goods, then also, appellant was not having any conscious possession of those articles. He was not even aware that those bags were containing Ganja. It was disclosed by the passengers, owning those bags, that therein, the material to form statues was kept. Nothing has been brought on record inspiring the confidence of the Court that this appellant agreed to carry the said contraband goods for some excessive fare. 5. That apart, appellant was challaned for violation of Traffic Rules under the Motor Vehicles Act. 6. Learned counsel has relied upon a precedent of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘Avtar Singh and others v. State of Punjab’ reported in 2003(1) UC 21. In that case, poppy straw was recovered with the passengers sitting in the vehicle. The driver of that vehicle too was challaned but the Hon’ble Apex Court did not find any guilt upon him for the reason that no alternative charge under Section 8 of the Act was levelled against him. Section 8 prohibits the transportation of psychotropic substance. 7. In that case, poppy straw was recovered with the passengers sitting in the vehicle. The driver of that vehicle too was challaned but the Hon’ble Apex Court did not find any guilt upon him for the reason that no alternative charge under Section 8 of the Act was levelled against him. Section 8 prohibits the transportation of psychotropic substance. 7. So, even if those 12 bags were found to be of Ganja, then on the strength of the above precedent, when no alternative charge of Section 8 of the Act was levelled against the appellant who was the driver of the vehicle, it is difficult for this Court to punish him for the offence of section 20(b()ii)(C) of the Act. It is further pertinent to mention here that before levelling of charge, the case of co-accused Punia and Ms. Vidya was separated by the trial court as their presence could not be ensured. 8. For the reasons as afore-stated, the Court allows the appeal by setting aside the judgment and order, under challenge. Appellant is already on bail. He needs not to surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. 9. Let a copy of this judgment along with the record of the case be transmitted to the court concerned.