JUDGMENT : R.P. Dholaria, J. 1. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant-original accused against the judgment and order dated 29-11-2011 passed by learned Special (N.D.P.S.) Judge, Himmatnagar, Camp at Idar in Special (N.D.P.S.) Case No. 7 of 2008 whereby the appellant-accused has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence punishable under Sees. 20(ii)(B)(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("the Act" for short) and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for three years. 2. The complaint came to be lodged against the accused for the offences under Sees. 8(c), 20(B)(C) and 29 of the Act. 3. In pursuance of the complaint, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed the charge-sheet against the accused. The charge was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 3.1. In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined witnesses and also produced documentary evidences. 3.2. At the end of the trial, after recording the statement of the accused under Sec. 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, learned trial Court delivered the judgment and order, as stated above. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before this Court. 5. By way of preferring the present appeal, the appellant-original accused has mainly contended that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly recorded the order of conviction. It is further contended that learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective, and in fact, there was no appreciation of evidence so far, and hence, the impugned judgment and order of conviction is required to be reversed, as such. 6. Mr. Ramnandan Singh, learned Advocate for the appellant-original accused has taken this Court through the entire judgment and record and argued that when the present appellant-accused was called for recording the statement under Sec. 67 of the Act by the N.C.B. personnel, at the relevant time, the accused was in custody at Central Jail, Vadodara, and admittedly, no delivery of seized article charas was handed over to him. He submitted that even as per the prosecution case, delivery was to be effected if absconded accused Kaiyum informs to accused No. 1-Firozkhan and there was no acquaintance between accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 who came to be tried as such and alleged quantity of charas weighing 12 kg. was seized from the alleged custody of accused No. 1-Firozkhan. He further submitted that entire case of the prosecution hinges upon confessional statement alleged to have been recorded by the Intelligence Officer on 5-8-2008 and on going through the entire confessional statement, though there are several conditions as regards to admissibility, but leaving it apart at present, even it may be believed to be true and even if it is accepted at the face value of it that the present appellant alleged to have confessed, then also, it is clearly revealing that accused Firozkhan was carrying contraband charas for absconded accused Kaiyum and at the behest of said absconded accused Kaiyum, contraband charas was to be delivered by Firozkhan upon receiving instructions from Kaiyum. Indisputably, no delivery of contraband charas came to be effected as the Intelligence Officer intercepted vehicle in the State of Rajasthan before the accused proceed to come to Gujarat, and therefore, the transaction was not complete so far as the present appellant-accused is concerned. In that view of the matter, even if the statement of the appellant-accused may be believed, then also, neither contraband charas in question was handed over to him nor any contraband charas came to be seized from his conscious possession, and therefore, no offence is made out even with the aid of Sec. 29 of the Act. 7. On the other hand, Ms. Monali Bhatt, learned A.P.P. has supported the judgment rendered by learned trial Court so far as it relates to conviction of the appellant-original accused. She submitted that this is a fit case wherein learned trial Court has considered voluminous evidence in its proper perspective and rightly convicted the accused. She submitted that finding recorded by learned trial Court is based upon the concrete and clinching evidence, and therefore, punishment inflicted upon the accused does not call for any interference. 8. Mr. Kartik Pandya, learned Standing Counsel, on being asked, states that the appellant-accused came to be convicted upon his confessional statement and that he has been involved in other two similar offences. 8. Mr. Kartik Pandya, learned Standing Counsel, on being asked, states that the appellant-accused came to be convicted upon his confessional statement and that he has been involved in other two similar offences. He also reiterated the arguments as have been advanced by learned A.P.P. for respondent No. 1 and requested this Court to consider the said arguments as have been argued on behalf of respondent No. 2. 9. This Court has heard Mr. Ramnandan Singh, learned Advocate for the appellant-accused, Ms. Bhatt, learned A.P.P. for respondent No. 1-State and Mr. Kartik Pandya, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 2. 10. This Court has also gone through the Record and Proceedings. Perused the impugned judgment and oral as well as documentary evidence on record. 11. Upon analysis of the evidence on record, it can be noticed that entire case of the prosecution hinges upon the alleged confessional statement recorded by H.K. Mukharji, Intelligence Officer, N.C.B., Ahmedabad on 5-8-2008 which alleged to have been made by the appellant-accused. As stated above, indisputably, contraband charas weighing 11.634 kg. came to be seized from the alleged custody of co-accused-Firozkhan at Ratanpur situated in State of Rajasthan. Indisputably, Record and Proceedings clearly indicates that one absconded accused-Kaiyum had dealt with the present appellant as regards to delivering 3 kg. charas at his residence at Vadodara, upon arrival from Kashmir through co-accused-Firozkhan, however, said absconded accused could not be traced out, and such, as not traceable information was received during the course of investigation as has been revealing from the Record and Proceedings. Indisputably, there was no privity of contract between the, present appellant-Mulchand @ Munna and co-accused-Firozkhan as regards to acquiring contraband charas to the extent of 3 kg. at Vadodara, and therefore, as argued by Mr. Ramnandan Singh, learned Advocate for the appellant that Sec. 29 of the Act would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as Sec. 29 of the Act envisages that the act either has been in committed with abetment or any criminal conspiracy. Since, there was no relationship between the person from whom contraband charas came to be seized and the present appellant-accused, he could not be convicted with the aid of Sec. 29 of the Act. 12. Since, there was no relationship between the person from whom contraband charas came to be seized and the present appellant-accused, he could not be convicted with the aid of Sec. 29 of the Act. 12. So far as the offence punishable under Sec. 20(ii)(B) read with Sec. 8(c) of the Act is concerned, since nothing was delivered to the present appellant-accused at his place at Vadodara, and even when he was summoned to record his statement under Sec. 67 of the Act, his presence was secured from the Central Jail, Vadodara, in connection with another offence, and therefore, even there was no possibility of delivering the contraband charas in question to him. It appears that since contraband charas came to be seized from the possession of co-accused-Firozkhan and upon his confessional statement, learned lower Court while recording the reasons has convicted the appellant-accused without recording the finding as to whether contraband charas in question weighing 3 kg. alleged to have been delivered to the appellant was in fact delivered to him or not is not delve into by learned trial Court. Even otherwise, it is nobody's case that contraband charas in question came to be delivered to the appellant-accused, unless such contraband charas delivered to the appellant-accused, he cannot be linked with the crime in question except he has no criminal conspiracy or he he has abetted for commission of offence with the prime accused and that is also nobody's case as has been revealing from the Record and Proceedings. 13. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant-accused has been wrongly convicted even though he has no nexus with the seized article and even nothing is emerging out that he has abetted in commission of the offence or he has been in conspiracy with co-accused-Firozkhan, and therefore, his conviction is not sustainable at law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 14. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal succeeds and the same is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 29-11-2011 passed by learned Special (N.D.P.S.) Judge, Himmatnagar, Camp at Idar in Special (N.D.P.S.) Case No. 7 of 2008 is quashed and set aside. The appellant-accused be set at liberty if no longer required in any other offence. Bail-bond, if any, stands cancelled. Record & Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned forthwith.