JUDGMENT : S.K. Sahoo, J. The appellant Amar @ Amarnath Naik faced trial in the Court of learned Sessions Judge -cum- Judge, Special Court, Sambalpur in T.R. No.10 of 2010 for offence punishable under section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereafter ‘N.D.P.S. Act’) on the accusation that on 29.04.2010 at about 5.25 a.m. near Birsa Munda Chowk, Ainthapali, he was found transporting 53 kgs. 950 grams of ganja which is of commercial quantity in contravention of the provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act. The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 17.04.2015 found the appellant guilty of the offence charged and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh), in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. The prosecution case, as per the first information report lodged by P.W.10 Alakananda Sahu, S.I. of Police, Ainthapali police station is that on 29.04.2010 at about 4.40 a.m., she along with other police officials came to Birsa Munda Chowk, Ainthapali for regulation of traffic and reached there at 4.50 a.m. and the traffic problem was cleared and at about 5.25 a.m., one Tata Sumo vehicle having no number plate on the front side came from Madanabati School side and on seeing the police, the driver of the Tata Sumo immediately turned to right side and stopped in front of Akash Tent house situated near Bisra Munda Chowk. As the activities of the driver of the vehicle caused suspicion, the police officials followed the vehicle and found a person on the driver’s seat and that person gave his identity by disclosing his name and address and he was the appellant of this case. The informant found the smell of ganja was coming out of the vehicle for which the appellant was asked to open the backdoor of the vehicle and it was found that there are four packets of fertilizers bags suspected to be containing ganja inside the back seat of the vehicle. One number plate of the vehicle i.e. OR 15 E 3680 was found there. P.W.10 immediately intimated the Inspector in charge of Ainthapali police station, Sambalpur and as per the instruction of the I.I.C., she guarded the vehicle. One number plate of the vehicle i.e. OR 15 E 3680 was found there. P.W.10 immediately intimated the Inspector in charge of Ainthapali police station, Sambalpur and as per the instruction of the I.I.C., she guarded the vehicle. The I.I.C. arrived at the spot at 6.00 a.m. Two local independent witnesses were called to the spot and in their presence, P.W.10 explained to the appellant regarding the intention to search of the vehicle. Personal search of P.W.10 and other police officials were taken so also that of the other witnesses. On the query of P.W.10, the appellant expressed his willingness to be searched in presence of the gazetted officer. As the I.I.C. was the gazetted officer, the Tata Sumo vehicle was searched in his presence and four numbers of fertilizers bags containing ganja (fruiting and flowering) were detected. The appellant was asked to produce any licence or authority for possession or transportation of such ganja in a vehicle but he failed to produce the same. On interrogation, the appellant admitted that he along with another person namely Manu Patra of village Birbira and another unknown person were transporting the ganja to Sundargarh side but he did not disclose the exact place of procurement. The appellant further stated that on seeing the police party, Manu Patra and another ran away from the vehicle. P.W.10 asked the A.S.I. of police Suresh Chandra Sahu to call a weighman to come with weighing instrument and a tailor for stitching and sealing. The A.S.I. returned to the spot with two persons and they were Harisankar Badhei (P.W.3) and another namely Bhimsen Behera. The packets containing ganja were weighed in presence of the appellant and the witnesses and it was separately marked as ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’. The net weight of ganja from packet ‘A’ was found to be 16 kg. 50 grams excluding the weight of polythene packet, 16 kg. 800 grams from packet ‘B’, 12 kg. 50 grams from packet ‘C’ and 9 kg. 50 grams from packet ‘D’. Samples of 50 grams was taken from each of the packets and it was divided into two equal samples each of 25 grams and it was kept in polythene envelop and sealed with the seal of P.W.10. The seizure lists were prepared and copies thereof were furnished to the appellant under proper acknowledgement. 50 grams from packet ‘D’. Samples of 50 grams was taken from each of the packets and it was divided into two equal samples each of 25 grams and it was kept in polythene envelop and sealed with the seal of P.W.10. The seizure lists were prepared and copies thereof were furnished to the appellant under proper acknowledgement. The weighing balance and measuring weights were also seized and it was given in the zima of the weighman P.W.3 Harisankar Badhei. The personal brass seal of P.W.10 was handed over to P.W.4 Surat Rout. As commercial quantity of ganja was seized from the possession of the appellant and he could not produce any licence or authority, P.W.10 after coming to Ainthapalli police station along with the appellant and the seized articles presented the F.I.R. before the Inspector in charge on the same day. P.W.14 Pranakrushna Rout was the Inspector in charge of Ainthapali police station who proceeded to the spot getting intimation from P.W.10 and he was present when the search and seizure was made by P.W.10. P.W.14 after registering the F.I.R. kept the seized contraband ganja in the police station Malkhana vide M.R. No.39 dated 29.04.2010, took up investigation of the case and during course of investigation, he examined the informant and other witnesses, visited the spot, prepared the spot map (Ext.16) and he submitted a detail report to his superior i.e. Superintendent of Police, Sambalpur on dated 29.04.2010 vide Ext.17. The station diary entry book of Budharaja outpost was seized. The appellant was forwarded to the Court on 30.04.2010 and a prayer was made before the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Sambalpur to send the sample ganja for chemical examination to R.F.S.L., Sambalpur and as per the direction of the Court, the sample ganja packets were sent to R.F.S.L., Sambalpur through S.D.J.M., Sambalpur for chemical examination. P.W.14 seized the station diary book of Ainthapali police station on production of the S.I. of police. He also seized the malkhana register and left the station diary book as well as in the malkhana register in the zima of S.I. of police Meghanath Kaibarta (P.W.11) by executing zimanama (Ext.13). P.W.14 seized the station diary book of Ainthapali police station on production of the S.I. of police. He also seized the malkhana register and left the station diary book as well as in the malkhana register in the zima of S.I. of police Meghanath Kaibarta (P.W.11) by executing zimanama (Ext.13). The I.O. seized the original registration certificate of the vehicle being produced by the owner Tusarkanta Nayak (D.W.1) as per the seizure list Ext.18 and also seized the detailed report submitted to S.P., Sambalpur from the office of Superintendent of Police under seizure list Ext.9. The station diary book of Budharaja outpost was given in zima of P.W.6 and on 24.06.2010 as per the direction of S.P., Sambalpur, P.W.14 handed over the charge of investigation to S.I. Upendra Joshi who ultimately submitted charge sheet on 28.06.2010 under section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act against the appellant showing the accused Munu @ Debendra Patra as an absconder. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined fourteen witnesses. P.W.1 Tanuj Kumar Dash was the constable attached to Ainthapali police station and he stated about the search and seizure of contraband ganja from the vehicle and its weight being taken by the weighman. P.W.2 Bipin Bihari Das was the A.S.I. of police attached to Ainthapali police station who is a witness to the seizure of command certificate vide Ext.3. P.W.3 Harishankar Badhei, P.W.4 Suratha Rout and P.W.5 Dayanidhi Seth are the seizure witnesses but they did not support the prosecution case for which they were declared hostile. P.W.6 Umakanta Sahu was the Havildar of Budharaja Town outpost and he also stated about the search and seizure of the contraband articles in the Tata Sumo vehicle and also about weighman taking the weight of the ganja which was found in four bags. He is a witness to the seizure of different articles. P.W.7 Kailash Chandra Pradhan was the constable in the office of the Superintendent of Police and he stated about the seizure of a letter dated 29.04.2010 by the I.I.C. of Ainthapali police station under seizure list Ext.9. P.W.8 Narendra Kumar Mohapatra was the A.S.I. of police attached to the office of the Superintendent of Police, Sambalpur and he is also a witness to the seizure list Ext.9. P.W.8 Narendra Kumar Mohapatra was the A.S.I. of police attached to the office of the Superintendent of Police, Sambalpur and he is also a witness to the seizure list Ext.9. P.W.9 Prafulla Kumar Sethi was the constable attached to Budharaja out post and he states about the seizure of station diary book under seizure list Ext.7 P.W.10 Alakananda Sahu was the S.I. of police attached to Ainthapali police station who conducted search of the vehicle in question and recovered contraband ganja of commercial quantity. She is the informant in the case. P.W.11 Meghanath Kaibarta was the A.S.I. of police, Ainthapali police station and he stated about the seizure of the station diary book as well as the malkhana register by the Inspector in charge of Ainthapali police station under seizure list Ext.12 and taking zima of such station diary as well as malkhana register under the zimanama Ext.13. P.W.12 Deepak Kumar Mohanty was the constable who stated about the seizure of a report under seizure list Ext.9. P.W.13 Jaladhar Bagh was the Gramarakhi in Dharuadihi police station who stated to have seen the appellant taking the family members of the owner in the vehicle. P.W.14 Pranakrushna Rout was the Inspector in charge of Ainthapali police station who is the investigating officer of the case. The prosecution exhibited twenty documents. Exts.1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 12 and 18 are the seizure lists, Ext.4/3 is the zimanama, Ext.5 is a money receipt, Ext.6/1 is the zimanama of the seal taken by P.W.4, Ext.8 is the true copy of the station diary entry dated 29.04.2010, Ext.10 is the written option offered by P.W.10 to the appellant, Ext.11 is the F.I.R., Exts.13 and 19 are the zimanama, Ext.14 is the true copy of the S.D.E. book, Ext.15 is the true copy of the malkhana register, Ext.16 is the spot map, Ext.17 is the detail report of P.W.14 and Ext.20 is the chemical examination report. The prosecution also proved eight material objects. The prosecution also proved eight material objects. M.O.I is the sample packet of ganja marked A/2, M.O.II is the sample packet of ganja marked B/2, M.O.III is the sample packet of ganja marked C/2, M.O.IV is the sample packet of ganja marked D/2, M.O.V is the sealed packet of bulk ganja marked A, M.O.VI is the sealed packet of bulk ganja marked B, M.O.VII is the sealed packet of bulk ganja marked C and M.O.VIII is the sealed packet of bulk ganja marked D. 4. The defence plea of the appellant is that on the date of occurrence, the co-villager Manu Patra and another person obstructed his vehicle on the way and the co-accused Manu Patra on the point of a knife asked him to carry some packets in the vehicle and in spite of the non-inclination of the appellant, the co-accused Manu Patra and the other person forcibly kept the packets in the vehicle and threatened the appellant with dire consequence and both of them fled away when police tried to detain the vehicle. One witness namely, Tusarkanta Naik who is the owner of the offending vehicle has been examined by D.W.1. 5. The learned trial Court after assessing the evidence on record has been pleased to hold that from the evidence adduced by the members of the team i.e. P.W.10 as well as the Investigating Officer P.W.14 that the number plate was recovered from the vehicle during the search, such fact clearly speaks out that the appellant was fully aware of the fact and also in order to evade the police arrest, deliberately detached the number plate and kept it inside the vehicle and thus the recovery of contraband substance from the vehicle in question along with the detached number plate hits section 54 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The learned trial Court further held that when all the official witnesses consistently corroborated each other on the factum of search, seizure and also sealing of the property in question, such evidence just cannot be thrown out only because of non-production of the brass seal by P.W.4. It was further held that there is no discrepancy in the evidence of P.W.10 and P.W.14 and such evidence is found to be trustworthy and credible and the safe custody of the seized property has been amply proved. It was further held that there is no discrepancy in the evidence of P.W.10 and P.W.14 and such evidence is found to be trustworthy and credible and the safe custody of the seized property has been amply proved. It was further held that on going through the evidence laid through the P.W.10 as well P.W.14, it clearly clarifies the position that the prosecution has left no stone unturned to implicate the accused with the alleged offence. Accordingly, the learned trial Court held that contraband ganja weighing 53 kgs. 950 grams was recovered from the exclusive conscious possession of the appellant which is more than commercial quantity and accordingly, the appellant was found guilty under section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act. 6. Mr. Susanta Kumar Dalai, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that in this case the seizure of contraband articles from the offending vehicle is not disputed and it is also not disputed that the appellant was found in the driver’s seat. He contended that the defence plea that the co-accused persons were forcibly carrying the contraband articles in the vehicle has been proved by preponderance of probabilities not only by taking specific plea in that respect in the statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. but also by eliciting relevant answers from the prosecution witnesses and by examining a defence witness. He further contended that the surrounding circumstances under which the vehicle was stopped and the conduct of the appellant at the relevant point of time strengthens the defence plea. It is further contended that was no culpable state of mind on the part of the appellant as required under section 35 of the N.D.P.S. Act and since the appellant was compelled to carry the packets without being aware of its contents, he should not have been convicted for transportation of commercial quantity of ganja and therefore, the impugned judgment and order of conviction should be set aside. Mr. Priyabrata Tripathy, learned Addl. Standing counsel on the other hand submitted that apart from the disclosure of the appellant regarding his complicity in the crime as mentioned in the first information report, the conduct of the appellant in carrying the vehicle to another place shows his culpable state of mind. Mr. Priyabrata Tripathy, learned Addl. Standing counsel on the other hand submitted that apart from the disclosure of the appellant regarding his complicity in the crime as mentioned in the first information report, the conduct of the appellant in carrying the vehicle to another place shows his culpable state of mind. It is further contended that the prosecution by adducing the evidence of the official witnesses has clearly established the seizure of commercial quantity of ganja from the exclusive and conscious possession of the appellant and the evidence of D.W.1 who is the owner of the vehicle is not reliable and trustworthy and therefore, the defence plea that the appellant was compelled to carry the contraband articles on the point of knife by two persons cannot be accepted and there is no infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment and order of conviction and therefore, the same should be upheld. 7. Adverting to the contentions raised at the Bar, since the seizure of contraband ganja in four packets which are also of commercial quantity from the offending vehicle is not in dispute so also it is not disputed that the appellant was the driver of the offending vehicle, the question falls for determination is whether the appellant was in exclusive and conscious possession of such ganja and he was knowingly transporting the same or that he was compelled to carry the packets on the point of knife by the co-accused Manu Patra and another without knowing its contents which was detected by the police. In the first information report, P.W.10 has not mentioned that any other person apart from the appellant was found in the vehicle or she saw them fleeing away from the vehicle. It is mentioned in the first information report that on interrogation of the appellant, he admitted that he along with another person namely Manu Patra village Birbira and another unknown person were transporting ganja to Sundargarh side and he did not disclose the exact place of procurement and that seeing the police, co-accused Manu Patra and another ran away from the vehicle. In his evidence, P.W.10 has however stated that at about 4.40 a.m. on 29.04.2010 reaching at the spot to clear the traffic, they found a long line of the vehicles were jamming on the road and while clearing the vehicle, she noticed one four wheeler vehicle i.e. Tata Sumo bearing registration no. In his evidence, P.W.10 has however stated that at about 4.40 a.m. on 29.04.2010 reaching at the spot to clear the traffic, they found a long line of the vehicles were jamming on the road and while clearing the vehicle, she noticed one four wheeler vehicle i.e. Tata Sumo bearing registration no. OR 15 E 3680 suspiciously turned out on the right and seeing that when they proceeded towards the vehicle, two persons jumping there from the vehicle ran away all on a sudden and the appellant was found in the driver’s seat. In the cross-examination, P.W.10 has further stated that two persons who ran away from the vehicle were chased by them for about 100 to 200 meters of distance. P.W.1 has also stated that two persons got down from the vehicle and ran away and they chased them but they managed to escape. P.W.6 has stated that when they went near the vehicle, seeing them approaching, two persons got down from the vehicle and ran away and they chased the two persons but could not nab them. He has further stated they gave a chase to the absconding persons for about half a kilometer but could not nab them. Therefore, even though in the first information report, the informant (P.W.10) has not stated to have seen two persons running away from the vehicle in question but in view of the evidence of the official witnesses during trial including that of the informant, it is crystal clear that two other persons were present in the offending vehicle apart from the appellant who fled away on seeing the police officials. Regarding the conduct of the appellant at the spot which has got relevance with the defence plea, it is seen that in the F.I.R., P.W.10 has mentioned that they reached at Birsamunda Chhak, Ainthapalli for regulation of traffic at 4.50 a.m. and with much difficulty, the traffic problem was cleared and at about 5.25 a.m., one Tata Sumo came from Madanabati School side. Therefore, at the time of arrival of Tata sumo, as per the F.I.R., the traffic problem was no more there. Therefore, at the time of arrival of Tata sumo, as per the F.I.R., the traffic problem was no more there. P.W.6 has stated in his evidence that it took about 45 minutes to clear up the jam and in his report, he has mentioned that it took 10 to 15 minutes to clear up the traffic jam and the Tata Sumo vehicle came to the spot at about 5.20 a.m. and the traffic was clear at Birsa Munda Chhaka at that time. P.W.10 has stated that while clearing the traffic, about 25 minutes thereafter, the Tata Sumo vehicle came there and he has further stated that Birsa Munda chhaka is connected with roads from four directions. Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the aforesaid evidence, it appears that by the time the Tata Sumo vehicle arrived at the spot, the traffic jam was clear. P.W.1 has stated that the vehicle could have easily proceeded ahead on any road instead of stopping. P.W.10 has stated that Aakash tent house is 50 meters away from Birsamunda Golei Chhak and they have not chased the Tata Sumo vehicle and the Tata Sumo vehicle stopped in front of the Akash tent house and by the time they reached there at Akash tent house, the said vehicle had already stopped. Therefore, it is evident that not only the traffic jam was clear at Bisra Munda Chhak at the relevant point of time but the petitioner who was in the driver’s seat was in a position to take away the vehicle in any direction but he did not do that rather he stopped the vehicle near Akash tent house which is closer to the chhak and was himself present in the driver’s seat till the arrival of the police officials though two other persons who were present in the vehicle fled away. It has come out from the evidence of P.W.10 that two persons who ran away from the vehicle were chased for about 100 to 200 meters of distance and P.W.6 has also stated that they gave a chase to the absconding persons for about half a kilometer. It has come out from the evidence of P.W.10 that two persons who ran away from the vehicle were chased for about 100 to 200 meters of distance and P.W.6 has also stated that they gave a chase to the absconding persons for about half a kilometer. Therefore, in spite of availability of sufficient time on the part of the appellant to escape from the spot with the vehicle or to run away after leaving the vehicle, his conduct in stopping the vehicle and remaining seated in the driver’s seat shows his bonafideness which disproves the culpable state of mind. P.W.10 has stated that on being asked, the appellant replied that the ganja was transported by one Manu Patra of village Biribira along with another person whose identity he did not know. P.W.14 has stated that seeing the police, two of the occupants of the vehicle namely one Munu Patra and another person got down and fled away. Therefore, the defence plea of the appellant that co-villager Manu Patra and another got into the vehicle with some packets and they fled away on seeing the police is corroborated by the evidence of the official witnesses. Section 25 of the N.D.P.S Act provides that 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 provisions of the Act, shall be punishable with the punishment provided for that offence. Thus the ingredients of section 25 of the N.D.P.S. Act appear to be as follows: (i) The accused must be either the owner, or occupier or he must have the control or use of the house, room, enclosure, space, place, animal or conveyance; (ii) He must have knowingly permitted such house, room etc. to be used for the commission by any other person of an offence punishable under any provision of N.D.P.S. Act. Mere ownership of vehicle which was found to have been used for transporting material like Ganja in itself is not an offence. The words “knowingly permits” are significant. It is for the prosecution to establish that with the owner’s knowledge, the vehicle was used for commission of an offence under the Act. Mere ownership of vehicle which was found to have been used for transporting material like Ganja in itself is not an offence. The words “knowingly permits” are significant. It is for the prosecution to establish that with the owner’s knowledge, the vehicle was used for commission of an offence under the Act. However, once the prosecution establishes the ownership as well as grant of permission by the accused to use his house or vehicle etc. by another person for commission of any offence under N.D.P.S. Act, the burden shifts to the accused and he has to give rebuttal evidence to disprove such aspects. Section 35 of the N.D.P.S. Act deals with presumption of ‘culpable mental state’ and it provides that in any prosecution for an offence under N.D.P.S. Act which requires a ‘culpable mental state’ of the accused, the Court shall presume the existence of such mental state. The ‘culpable mental state’ includes intention, motive, knowledge of a fact and belief in, or reason to believe, a fact. However, it is for the defence to prove that the accused had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution. The accused is to prove that he was not in conscious possession of the contraband if it is proved by the prosecution that he was in possession thereof and he is also to prove that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence (Ref:- (2015) 60 Orissa Criminal Reports 91, Sri Nasar Kumbhar Vs. State of Odisha) In the case of Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri Vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2000 SC 821 , it is held as follows:- “21. No doubt, when the appellant admitted that narcotic drug was recovered from the gunny bags stacked in the auto-rickshaw, the burden of proof is on him to prove that he had no knowledge about the fact that those gunny bags contained such a substance. The standard of such proof is delineated in sub-section (2) as "beyond a reasonable doubt. If the court, on an appraisal of the entire evidence does not entertain doubt of a reasonable degree that he had real knowledge of the nature of substance concealed in the gunny bags then the appellant is not entitled to acquittal. The standard of such proof is delineated in sub-section (2) as "beyond a reasonable doubt. If the court, on an appraisal of the entire evidence does not entertain doubt of a reasonable degree that he had real knowledge of the nature of substance concealed in the gunny bags then the appellant is not entitled to acquittal. However, if the court entertains strong doubt regarding the accused's awareness about the nature of the substance in the gunny bags, it would be a miscarriage of criminal justice to convict him of the offence keeping such strong doubt dispelled. Even so, it is for the accused to dispel any doubt in that regard. 22. The burden of proof cast on the accused under Section 35 can be discharged through different modes. One is that, he can rely on the materials available in the prosecution evidence. Next is, in addition to that he can elicit answers from prosecution witnesses through cross-examination to dispel any such doubt. He may also adduce other evidence when he is called upon to enter on his defence. In other words, if circumstances appearing in prosecution case or in the prosecution evidence are such as to give reasonable assurance to the court that appellant could not have had the knowledge or the required intention, the burden cast on him under Section 35 of the Act would stand discharged even if he has not adduced any other evidence of his own when he is called upon to enter on his defence.” Law is well settled that the prosecution has prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt where as the accused can prove its defence by preponderance of probabilities. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on records by the parties but also by reference to the circumstance upon which the accused relies. Section 106 of the Evidence Act clearly enjoins that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Section 35(2) of the N.D.P.S. Act requires the accused to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had no culpable mental state with respect to the act charged. The general principle regarding the discharge of burden by preponderance of probability is not applicable. Section 35(2) of the N.D.P.S. Act requires the accused to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had no culpable mental state with respect to the act charged. The general principle regarding the discharge of burden by preponderance of probability is not applicable. The burden can be discharged by an accused adducing cogent and reliable evidence which must appear to be believable or by bringing out answers from the prosecution witnesses or showing circumstances which might lead the Court to draw a different inference. In the present case, not only the appellant has taken a specific defence plea but he has elicited answers from the prosecution witnesses through cross examination which supports his defence plea. The appellant has examined one witness who is none else than the owner of the vehicle and he has stated that when he came to know from the police station about the seizure of his vehicle that the driver (appellant) has been forwarded to the Circle Jail, Sambalpur, in order to ascertain under what circumstances the driver did not return along with the vehicle as per his instruction, he met the appellant in the jail where the appellant told him that on the way co-villager Manu Patra along with another came to him and on the point of knife, he was asked to carry some bags containing some articles. He was also asked to drive the vehicle to the place of their choice and accordingly, he drove the vehicle towards Ainthapalli Chhaka and at the sight of the police, he parked the vehicle at the side of the road but at the same time accused Manu Patra and another fled away from the spot. Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for the State contended that the meeting of D.W.1 with the appellant in the Circle Jail, Sambalpur is a doubtful feature in as much as he has stated that he did not make any application to the Jail Authority to meet the appellant-driver and further stated that he did not remember the exact date when he had been to the Circle Jail to meet the appellant, however, he has stated that it was on the same day when the appellant was forwarded to Jail. The case record indicates that the appellant was forwarded to the Court on 30.04.2010 and on the same day, he was remanded to the Circle Jail, Sambalpur. The case record indicates that the appellant was forwarded to the Court on 30.04.2010 and on the same day, he was remanded to the Circle Jail, Sambalpur. D.W.1 has stated that the appellant had taken his (D.W.1’s) wife and mother-in-law to Badamal in his vehicle and he was told to return after dropping them and that he received the information from the police station three to four days after. Therefore, there is no such material discrepancy regarding the date on which the D.W.1 has stated to have met the appellant in jail. In ordinary course of nature, since D.W.1 was the owner of the vehicle and the vehicle was detained and the driver was arrested, it was expected of him to meet the driver in the jail to ascertain under what circumstances he was taken into custody. Therefore, there is no such improbability feature in the evidence of D.W.1 regarding his meeting with the appellant in the Circle Jail. The disclosure made by the appellant before the owner of the vehicle not only corroborates the defence plea but also to the statements of the official witnesses who have stated about the escape of two persons from the vehicle. The learned trial Court has mentioned in its judgment that it is well evident from the evidence of P.W.10 as well as P.W.14 that a number plate was recovered from the vehicle during search and therefore, the learned trial Court jumped to the conclusion that the appellant was fully aware of the fact and also in order to evade the police arrest, deliberately detached the number plate and kept it inside the vehicle. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.10 and P.W.14, none of them has stated about any detached number plate was found inside the vehicle. No such number plate was also seized from inside the vehicle. The evidence of P.W.10 indicates that they noticed a four wheeler vehicle i.e. Tata Sumo bearing registration no. OR 15 E 3680 was coming and it suspiciously turned out of the line. P.W.14 has also stated that about the detention of the Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration no.OR 15 E 3680 by P.W.10. The evidence of P.W.10 indicates that they noticed a four wheeler vehicle i.e. Tata Sumo bearing registration no. OR 15 E 3680 was coming and it suspiciously turned out of the line. P.W.14 has also stated that about the detention of the Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration no.OR 15 E 3680 by P.W.10. Therefore, though in the first information report, it is mentioned that there was no number plate on the front side of the Tata Sumo vehicle but since the contents of the first information report is not the substantive piece of evidence and the informant himself as well as the Investigating Officer have not stated about such aspect of missing of number plate from the front side of the vehicle or detection of the number plate from inside the vehicle, I am of the view that the learned trial Court has committed error of record in holding that from the evidence of P.W.10 as well as P.W.14, it is well evident that the number plate was recovered from the vehicle during search. Therefore, the consequential presumption which the learned trial Court has drawn taking recourse to section 54 of the N.D.P.S. Act is also not sustainable. 8. On a careful analysis of the evidence on record, I am of the view that not only the appellant has taken a specific defence plea but he has also discharged the burden proof as required under section 35 of the N.D.P.S. Act by eliciting answers from the prosecution witnesses through cross-examination, by adducing defence evidence as well as by showing his bona fide conduct at the spot. The conduct of the appellant in stopping the vehicle, his non-attempt to flee away from the vehicle even though having sufficient opportunity for the same are the circumstances which lead to an inference that the defence plea is more probable and acceptable. There is no material to show that the appellant had real knowledge of the nature of the substance concealed in the bags which were found inside the vehicle or he was in exclusive or conscious possession of the contraband ganja found inside the bags rather it appears that he was compelled to carry the bags by two persons without being aware of its contents, one of whom is the co-villager Manu Patra and both the persons fled away on seeing the police officials leaving the appellant to suffer the destiny. Thus the materials on record create strong doubt regarding the awareness of the appellant about the nature of the substance concealed in the bags or that he knowingly permitted the contraband ganja to be transported in the vehicle. If a driver of a vehicle after exercising due diligence is unaware about the nature of substance carried by a passenger in his bag which was detected to be contraband articles subsequently or he was compelled to carry such bag under threat or fear of death and the driver facing trial satisfies the Court in that respect by adducing cogent evidence for which the Court entertains a strong doubt about the prosecution case, it would be a travesty of justice to convict the driver for transporting contraband articles. The reasons assigned by the learned trial Court in convicting the appellants appears to be faulty and defective. The defence plea has not been properly appreciated and error of record has been committed by the learned trial Court. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order of conviction of the appellant under section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act is not sustainable in the eye of law. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The appellant is acquitted of the charge under section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act. The appellant who is in jail custody shall be set at liberty forthwith if his detention is not required in any other case.