JUDGMENT : Mrs. Sabina, J. Appellant had faced trial in F.I.R. No. 145/2010 registered by Police Station, Chipa Barod, Baran, under Section 8/15 and 8/25 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. Prosecution story in brief is that on 26.5.2010, Station House Officer, Lokendra Paliwal had left for patrolling along with other police officials at about 3.45 p.m. During patrolling they saw one tractor trolley near village Jabalpur, adjacent to plantation. One person was sitting in the trolley whereas one person was driving the tractor. On seeing the police party, the said persons fled away from the spot. When the trolley was checked, poppy husk weighing 330 kilograms was recovered. 3. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellant. 4. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined 15 witnesses. Appellant when examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, after close of prosecution evidence, prayed that he was innocent. Appellant examined one witness in his defence. 5. Trial court vide judgment/order dated 6.2.2013, ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 8/25 of the Act. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the so far as the appellant is concerned, he had no concern with the tractor in question. As per P.W.15 appellant was not present at the spot. Investigating Officer Ganga Sahai P.W.8 deposed in his cross-examination that Onkar Lal and Prabhu Lal were the owners of the tractor in question. During investigation it transpired that the tractor had been given to Inder Singh on lease at Rs. 10,000/- per month. Tractor used to remained in the possession of Inder Singh. 7. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the appeal. 8. In the present case poppy husk was recovered from the tractor trolley in question. Prosecution witnesses deposed with regard to recovery of the contraband from the tractor in question. It was further the case of the prosecution that the driver as well as the other person sitting in the trolley had managed to escape from the spot. 9. P.W.15 Lokendra Paliwal deposed in his cross examination that the appellant was not one of the persons, who had fled away from the spot. 10. It was further the case of the prosecution that the driver as well as the other person sitting in the trolley had managed to escape from the spot. 9. P.W.15 Lokendra Paliwal deposed in his cross examination that the appellant was not one of the persons, who had fled away from the spot. 10. P.W. 8, SHO Ganga Sahai in his cross-examination deposed that the appellant had himself come to the police station and was arrested. It was correct that the tractor in question was owned by Onkar Lal and Prabhu Lal. He further admitted that during investigation it had transpired that the tractor had been given on lease to Inder Singh at Rs. 10,000/- per month and the tractor remained with Inder Singh for the entire day and night. 11. Thus, from the cross-examination of material witnesses P.W.15 and P.W.8 it is evident that the appellant was not one of the persons who had fled away from the spot. Further appellant is not the owner of the tractor in question and during investigation it had transpired that the tractor had been given on lease to Inder Singh and it remained in his possession. In these circumstances, appellant was liable to be acquitted of the charge framed against him. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against him. Judgment/order dated 6.2.2013 passed by the trial court are set aside.