JUDGMENT : A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J. 1. Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is to the judgment, dated 08.09.2009 in NDPS Sessions Case No. 31 of 2007, on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of the Cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985-cum-I Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry (“Special Judge” for short). This appeal is filed by the unsuccessful A.1 and A.2 in the aforesaid Sessions Case. They faced trial under Section 8(c) r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act” for short) and they were convicted under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.” for short) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/-each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months each. 2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the learned Special Judge for the sake of convenience. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, as set out in the charge sheet filed by the Inspector of Police, Korukonda Circle, alleging the offence Section 8(c) r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of N.D.P.S. Act is as follows: On 22.08.2007 at about 8-30 a.m., while K.V.N. Vara Prasad, Inspector of Police, Korukonda Circle (P.W.5) was present in his office, he received credible information that Ganja is being transported from Tirumalayapalem to Rajahmundry by some smugglers. He left his office in Government jeep and reached Gokavaram at about 9 a.m., secured the presence of Addanki Adinarayana Rao (P.W.1) and Polarapu Vadapalli (L.W.2) mediators at Gokavaram Police Station, and he has also collected Ch. Suribabu, Sub-Inspector of Police, Gokavaram Police Station (P.W.4) and his staff at about 9 a.m. They proceeded towards Tirumalayapalem. They reached near reserve forest area between villages of Rampa Yerrampalem and Tirumalayapalem and noticed goods auto bearing Registration No. A.P.05-V-7805 proceeding from Tirumalayapalem towards Rampa Yerrampalem village. On seeing the police jeep, the auto driver tried to turn back. In the meanwhile, two persons who sat on the back side of the auto cabin, jumped from the cabin and escaped into the reserve forest. In the meanwhile, P.W.5 rounded up the auto with his staff and caught the remaining two persons, Puli Appa Rao (A.2) is the driver-cum-owner of the auto and Anuboina Krishna (A.1) sat on his side. P.W.5 arrested both of them under suspicious circumstances. In the meanwhile, P.W.5 rounded up the auto with his staff and caught the remaining two persons, Puli Appa Rao (A.2) is the driver-cum-owner of the auto and Anuboina Krishna (A.1) sat on his side. P.W.5 arrested both of them under suspicious circumstances. On questioning them about their names and addresses, they disclosed the same. On their disclosure, two gunny bags which are loaded in the auto cabin were also found. They stated that the bags contained ganja and smell of ganja is emanating from the bags and a notice was served to them seeking their option whether they would need presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate to check the contents of bags, duly signed by P.W.5 and the accused expressed their desire that they need a Gazetted Officer to check the bags and also acknowledged the notice, P.W.5 separated A.1 and A.2, interrogated them in the presence of mediators and recorded their confessions under a cover of mediators report. When P.W.5 questioned them about absconded persons, they furnished that their names are Yelugubanti Veerababu (A.3) and Yeluri Srinu (A.4). When P.W.5 questioned whether they have got any permit for possession and transportation of such ganja they replied that they do not have such licence. After taking custody of the accused and gunny bags, they were produced before the Tahsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Gokavaram at about 11 am., Md. Khasim, Tahsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Gokavaram Mandaki (P.W.2) who was available in the office. He gave his consent to check the bags in the auto in the presence of mediators, P.W.2 examined the accused and the accused confessed about the contents of the bags and he verified the contents of the bags. P.W.5 deputed the P.C.378 to bring one person with balance and weights to weigh the contraband and he brought Bathula Suranna @ Suribabu of Gokavaram (P.W.3) before P.W.2. The accused opened the said two gunny bags in the presence of mediators and the bags containing ganja, P.W.3 weighed the ganja bags with the balance and weights in the presence of mediators and P.W.5, each bag contained 25 kgs. of ganja. Then 100 grams of ganja was lifted from each gunny bag as a sample for Chemical Analysis. They sealed the said samples and the contraband in two bags in the presence of mediators and slips were affixed. of ganja. Then 100 grams of ganja was lifted from each gunny bag as a sample for Chemical Analysis. They sealed the said samples and the contraband in two bags in the presence of mediators and slips were affixed. P.W.5 verified the goods auto bearing Registration No. A.P.05-V-7805 and chassis number and engine number. The same is in the name of A.2. C-Book and driving licence were also seized in the presence of the mediators. When P.W.2 questioned the accused whether they got any permit to possess or transport ganja, then they replied that they do not have such reply. The mediators report was drafted at the office of P.W.2. Later P.W.5 handed over the accused, seized contraband and Ex.P.1 to P.W.4, and P.W.5 made an endorsement to register case. Then P.W.4 registered this case. The arrested A.1 and A.2 were produced before the Court of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class, Rajahmundry. On 06.09.2007, A.3 and A.4 surrendered before the Court and they were remanded to judicial custody. Chemical Examiner, Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Kakinada, in his report vide CE.No. 724/2007, dated 26.08.2007 opined that the samples contained are of ganja. 4. The learned Special Judge took cognizance of the case under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b(ii)(C) of N.D.P.S Act. On appearance of A.1 to A.4 and on compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C., the learned Special Judge framed charge under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b(ii)(C) of N.D.P.S Act, for which A.1 to A.4 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to establish the guilt against the accused, the prosecution, during the course of trial, examined P.W.1 to P.W.5 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 and further M.O.1 to M.O.3. After closure of the evidence of prosecution, the accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in by the prosecution, for which they denied the same and stated that they have no defence witnesses. 6. After closure of the evidence of prosecution, the accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in by the prosecution, for which they denied the same and stated that they have no defence witnesses. 6. The learned Special Judge on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as the documentary evidence, found A.3 and A.4 not guilty of the charge under Section 8(c) r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act and acquitted them under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The learned Special Judge found A.1 and A.2 guilty of the charge under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b(ii)(C) of N.D.P.S Act and convicted them under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. and after questioning them about the quantum of sentence, sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months each and that they are entitled to set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The learned Special Judge ordered destruction of M.O.1 and M.O.2 samples and that M.O.3 shall be confiscated to the State after appeal time is over. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful A.1 and A.2 filed the present appeal. 7. Now, in deciding this Criminal Appeal in the light of the contention advanced, the points for determination are as follows: (1) Whether the mandatory compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act is necessary and if so, whether they are complied? (2) Whether the prosecution proved that A.1 and A.2 were found possession of 25 kgs. of ganja each on 22.08.2007 while they were transporting the same in an auto in the manner as alleged? (3) Whether the prosecution proved the charge under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b(ii)(C) of N.D.P.S Act against Appellants/A.1 and A.2 beyond reasonable doubt? (4) Whether the judgment of the learned Special Judge dated 08.09.2009 in S.C.No. 31 of 2007, is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with? POINT NOS. 1 TO 4: 8. P.W.1 was the V.R.O. of Rampa Yerrampalem. His evidence in substance is that on 22.08.2007 at the request of Constable of Gokavaram, he went to Gokavaram Police Station. The C.I. of Police and his staff took them to Tirumalayapalem Forest Area. They found an Auto coming in their opposite direction. POINT NOS. 1 TO 4: 8. P.W.1 was the V.R.O. of Rampa Yerrampalem. His evidence in substance is that on 22.08.2007 at the request of Constable of Gokavaram, he went to Gokavaram Police Station. The C.I. of Police and his staff took them to Tirumalayapalem Forest Area. They found an Auto coming in their opposite direction. The said auto driver on seeing the police Jeep slowed the auto. One person was sitting by the side of auto driver. Two persons who were in the truck part of the auto jumped and absconded. They stopped the auto and they revealed their identity as A.1 and A.2 and that in the truck part of the auto there are two bags of ganja. Then the Inspector asked them whether they need the presence of any Gazetted Officer for search for which they expressed their readiness to be searched before a Gazetted Officer. A notice was served on A.1 and A.2 to that effect under Ex.P.1. The investigating officer seized the auto and two bags. A.1 and A.2 revealed the name of A.3 and A.4, as the persons, who absconded on seeing the police. To that effect, a mahazar was drafted. After that the Inspector of Police gave a requisition to Tahsildar, Gokavaram and the Tahsildar, Gokavaram enquired about the details of A.1 and A.2 under Ex.P.2. Before Tahsildar, they stated that the gunny bags contained ganja. Tahsildar opened the same and found ganja. Each bag was weighed as 25 kgs. Inspector of Police lifted 100 grams of ganja from each gunny bag. M.O.1 and M.O.2 are the gunny bags. A mahazar was drafted under Ex.P.3 with the thumb mark of A.1 and signature of A.2. A.1 and A.2 were the persons, who were apprehended by the police. 9. P.W.2 is the Tahsildar, Gokavaram, who testified that on 22.08.2007 at 11-00 or 11-30 a.m., Inspector of Police and S.I. of Police produced two accused before him with two bags of ganja in a truck auto. He enquired the said two persons, who revealed their names. He searched two gunny bags and found ganja. He searched them in the presence of P.W.5 and L.W.2. The ganja was weighed and each bag was weighed 25 kgs. He took sample of 100 grams from each gunny bag. A.2 revealed that auto is in his name. He seized the documents of the auto and his driving licence. He searched two gunny bags and found ganja. He searched them in the presence of P.W.5 and L.W.2. The ganja was weighed and each bag was weighed 25 kgs. He took sample of 100 grams from each gunny bag. A.2 revealed that auto is in his name. He seized the documents of the auto and his driving licence. A mahazar was drafted under Ex.P.3. 10. P.W.3, the person who weighed the ganja turned hostile. 11. P.W.4, S.I. of Police deposed that at the instructions of C.I. of police, he secured the presence of P.W.1 as a mediator and thereafter, Inspector of Police came there and they all proceeded to Tirumalayapalem. He further supported the case of the prosecution with regard to apprehension of A.1 and A.2 in the auto with ganja and further events relating to the interrogation of A.1 and A.2 and search of gunny bags with the help of the M.R.O. He further deposed that basing on the mediators report he registered the FIR under Ex.P.6. 12. P.W.5 is the Inspector of Police. His evidence is that on 22.08.2007 at about 8-30 a.m., he received credible information about the transportation of ganja and instructed the S.I. of Police, Gokavaram, to secure mediators. He left his office and reached Gokavaram Police Station. After securing P.W.1 and S.I of Police and L.W.3, he proceeded to Rampa Yerrampalem on Government Jeep at 10-00 a.m., and reached reserve forest area and noticed goods auto bearing No. A.P.05-V-7805. On seeing the police jeep, the driver of the auto tried to turn back their vehicle, but they could not. Meanwhile, two persons from the auto jumped and escaped. Then they found the driver of auto and besides him one other person, who are A.1 and A.2. They revealed that in the bags in the auto ganja was there. He obtained the consent of the accused to be searched before a Gazetted Officer. He took the accused along with auto and ganja bags before M.R.O. and before M.R.O. gunny bags were searched and found as 25 kgs. of ganja in each bag and then sample of 100 grams from each gunny bag were lifted and they are M.O.1 and M.O.2. He verified the records of auto and driving licence of A.2. A mahazar was drafted to that effect. Later, he instructed P.W.4 to register FIR. Accused were forwarded to remand. of ganja in each bag and then sample of 100 grams from each gunny bag were lifted and they are M.O.1 and M.O.2. He verified the records of auto and driving licence of A.2. A mahazar was drafted to that effect. Later, he instructed P.W.4 to register FIR. Accused were forwarded to remand. He sent a detailed report to his superiors. Samples were sent to chemical examiner. A.3 and A.4 surrendered before the Court. He received Ex.P.8 which reveals that the samples are of ganja. 13. Sri T.S.N. Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, would vehemently contend that P.W.5, the investigating officer, violated Section 42 of the NDPS Act. Though he claimed that he received credible information, but he did not reduce the same into writing. This contention was raised before the learned Special Judge. He would further submit that there was also violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. He would further submit that Section 57 of the NDPS Act was also violated. P.W.1 and P.W.2, the revenue officials, just obliged the request of P.W.5 in fabricating a case against the accused. The samples were not drawn properly. Everything was stage managed by the police. Ex.P.1 was served after verification of bags only and there is a clear violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. M.O.1 and M.O.2 does not bear the identity slips when they were produced before the Court. There was no link to show that M.O.1 and M.O.2 were from the contraband alleged to be found in possession of A.1 and A.2. The learned Special Judge erred in convicting A.1 and A.2, as such, appeal is liable to be allowed. 14. Sri N. Sravan Kumar, learned counsel, representing the learned Public Prosecutor, would contend that on receipt of information that ganja was being transported, P.W.5 directed P.W.4-S.I. of Police to secure the mediators and accordingly P.W.4 secured the presence of P.W.1-V.R.O. After detection of Auto and after hearing the version of A.1 and A.2, P.W.5 got recorded the proceedings there under the cover of mahazar and took them along with auto to P.W.2-M.R.O. in whose presence the gunny bags were searched and they were found with ganja. He would submit that though there was no necessity to comply Section 50 of the NDPS Act, as there was no personal search, but P.W.5 under a bonafide of impression that he had to comply the same, got searched the gunny bags in the presence of P.W.2. The contention of the appellants that Section 50 of the NDPS Act is violated is not tenable. Apart from this, the information that was received by P.W.5 was only regarding transportation of ganja, but not the mode of transport. He did not receive information that ganja was being transported in an auto or in any conveyance. Hence, the compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act would not arise. He would submit that the learned Special Judge acting upon Section 43 of the NDPS Act negatived the contention of A.1 and A.2. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is consistent throughout and the learned Special Judge with sound reasons upheld the case of the prosecution, as such, appeal is liable to be dismissed. 15. Firstly, in the light of the contentions canvassed, I would like to decide as to whether there is any violation of Section 42 of the NDPS Act as contended by the learned counsel for the appellants. Section 42 of the Act runs as follows: 42. 15. Firstly, in the light of the contentions canvassed, I would like to decide as to whether there is any violation of Section 42 of the NDPS Act as contended by the learned counsel for the appellants. Section 42 of the Act runs as follows: 42. Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorization: (1) Any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the departments of central excise, narcotics, customs, revenue intelligence or any other department of the Central Government including para-military forces or armed forces as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order by the Central Government, or any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the revenue, drugs control, excise, police or any other department of a State Government as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order of the State Government, if he has reason to believe from persons knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing that any narcotic drug, or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance in respect of which an offence punishable under this Act has been committed or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of the commission of such offence or any illegally acquired property or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act is kept or concealed in any building, conveyance or enclosed place, may between sunrise and sunset: (a) enter into and search any such building, conveyance or place. (b) in case of resistance, break open any door and remove any obstacle to such entry. (c) seize such drug or substance and all materials used in the manufacture thereof and any other article and any animal or conveyance which he has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation under this Act and any document or other article which he has reason to believe may furnish evidence of the commission of any offence punishable under this Act or furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act. (d) detain and search, and, if he thinks proper, arrest any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed any offence punishable under this Act: Provided that in respect of holder of a licence for manufacture of manufactured drugs or psychotropic substances or controlled substances, granted under this Act or any rule or order made there under, such power shall be exercised by an officer not below the rank of sub-inspector: Provided further that if such officer has reason to believe that a search warrant or authorisation cannot be obtained without affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence or facility for the escape of an offender, he may enter and search such building, conveyance or enclosed place at any time between sunset and sunrise after recording the grounds of his belief. (2) Where an officer takes down any information in writing under sub-section (1) or records grounds for his belief under the proviso thereto, he shall within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior. 16. A close perusal of Section 42 of the Act means that if the empowered officer has any information out of his personal knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing about the storage of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance in any house, enclosed place or in any conveyance, he may between sunrise and sunset enter into and search any building, conveyance or place and seize such contraband. The proviso of Section 42 reveals that such search can be conducted between sunset and sunrise. When Section 42(1) contemplates search during day time, the proviso contemplates search during night time. According to Section 42(2) of the Act where an officer takes down any information in writing under sub-section (1) or records grounds for his belief under the proviso thereto, he shall within 72 hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior. 17. Coming to the present case on hand according to the evidence of P.W.4-the S.I. of Police, C.I. of Police instructed him to get the mediators. During cross examination, he stated that the Inspector of Police told him that there was an information about the offence and instructed him to secure the presence of mediators. He did not reveal that it was a case of ganja. During cross examination, he stated that the Inspector of Police told him that there was an information about the offence and instructed him to secure the presence of mediators. He did not reveal that it was a case of ganja. According to P.W.5-the Inspector of Police, he received creditable information about the transportation of ganja from Tirumalayapalem village side to Rajahmundry. Accordingly, he gave instructions to S.I. of Police, Gokavaram, to secure the mediators. In cross examination it was elicited that he received information at 8-30 a.m. and he also made an entry in the GD about their moving from Gokavaram Police Station. 18. It is to be noted that according to Section 42 of the NDPS Act, the question of reducing the information into writing would arise when the empowered officer had definite information as to the storage of narcotic drug in any building, conveyance or enclosed place. Here, it was not elicited from P.W.5 during cross examination as to whether he received definite information that ganja was being transported in a conveyance. The evidence of P.W.5 does not mean that he had definite information about the transportation of ganja in a conveyance as mentioned in Section 42 of the NDPS Act. The accused failed to probabalize any circumstances to show that there was violation of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. 19. It is to be noted that this contention was raised before the learned Special Judge and the learned Special Judge dealt with Section 43 of the NDPS Act and turned down the contention of the learned defence counsel that when the vehicle was searched in a public place, there is no need to comply Section 42 of the NDPS Act. 20. The learned Special Judge relied upon a decision in Dasari Pullareddy and Another vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2008 (1) ALD (Cri.) 213 (AP) for the proposition that when the arrest and seizure were made in a public place, Section 42 of the NDPS Act is not at all attracted and it is covered by Section 43 of the said Act. He also made a finding that the above said decision was referred by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by relying the decision in Ravindran vs. Superintendent of Customs, (2007) 6 SCC 410 and extracted the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as follows: “When arrest and seizure was made at bus stand and not in any building, conveyance or enclosed place, Section 42 of the Act was not attracted. The case was covered by Section 43, which does not require the information of any person to be taken down in writing or that officer concerned must send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior within 72 hours. It is further held that in case of search of bag carried by the accused, Section 50 is not attracted.” 21. Under the circumstances, the contention of the appellants that Section 42 of the NDPS Act is violated is not tenable. 22. It is to be noted that there is no basis for the appellants to contend that Section 50 of the NDPS Act is violated. In fact, compliance of Section 50 of the Act would arise only when there is a personal search of the accused. Here, absolutely, there was no personal search of the accused. It is not that on account of the personal search, contraband was seized from the accused. However, as evident from the evidence of P.W.5, it appears that under a misconception that he has to comply Section 50 of the Act asked A.1 and A.2 as to whether they need the presence of any Gazetted Officer to be searched for which they gave positive reply and in that view of the matter, he took them along with auto to P.W.2 and in whose presence the ganja bags were searched and they were found with ganja. So, legally there was no need or necessity to comply Section 50 of the Act, but investigating officer claimed to have complied the same for search of gunny bags before P.W.2-Gazetted Officer. In fact, as pointed out there is no question of compliance of Section 50 of the Act where there was no personal search. It has been repeatedly held in various decisions. 23. In Bodaband Sundar Singh vs. State of A.P. (2001) 2 ALD (Crl.) 928 (AP), there was a case where the investigating agency found contraband in possession of a box and zip bag of the accused. It has been repeatedly held in various decisions. 23. In Bodaband Sundar Singh vs. State of A.P. (2001) 2 ALD (Crl.) 928 (AP), there was a case where the investigating agency found contraband in possession of a box and zip bag of the accused. The trial court recorded conviction against the accused. Then, the matter went in appeal before the High Court of A.P. at Hyderabad. The High Court of A.P. referred various decisions and held that Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act would come into play only in the case of a search of a person as distinguished from search of any place etc. The High Court of A.P. in arriving at such a conclusion relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kalema Tumba vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2000 SC 402 and further the Constitutional Bench decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Baladev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC 172 . The High Court of A.P. by following the above said decisions held that the search of a person indicates search of the body of the person but not other belongings like hand bags, suitcases, etc., as such when there is search of a person, then only the procedure contemplated under Section 50 of the Act has to be resorted to. 24. In the light of the above, absolutely, the contention of the appellants that Section 50 of the Act was violated deserves no merits. 25. Coming to the contention of the appellants that Section 57 of the NDPS Act is violated, this Court would like to make it clear that compliance of Section 57 of the Act is directory. However, as evident from Ex.P.9, it is a preliminary report presented by the investigating officer to the Sub Divisional Police Officer. It can be termed as a compliance of Section 57 of the Act. The very contention advanced in this regard is not tenable. 26. Now, coming to the factual analysation as to whether the evidence let in by the prosecution is believable or not. P.W.1 was V.R.O. whose duty was to assist the police, even under the provisions of NDPS Act in detection and investigation of the offences. Except suggesting that he is deposing false, nothing could be elicited from his cross examination. Similar is the situation in respect of the evidence of P.W.2, the revenue official. P.W.1 was V.R.O. whose duty was to assist the police, even under the provisions of NDPS Act in detection and investigation of the offences. Except suggesting that he is deposing false, nothing could be elicited from his cross examination. Similar is the situation in respect of the evidence of P.W.2, the revenue official. P.W.2 categorically testified about the search of gunny bags in the auto in the presence of A.1 and A.2 and they were found with 25 kgs. of ganja each. During cross examination P.W.2 deposed that Inspector of Police produced two accused at 11-15 a.m. or 11-30 a.m. The contents on the identity slips of M.O.1 and M.O.2 were drafted in his presence. In his presence they affixed the seal on M.O.1 and M.O.2. Now M.O.1 and M.O.2 shows the identity slips are inside but they are not affixed. It is to be noted that it is also the answer spoken by P.W.1 that now presently M.O.1 and M.O.2 bears an identity slips inside and they were not affixed. 27. It is to be noted that M.O.1 and M.O.2 undergone chemical test. There was every possibility of insertion of identity slips after chemical examination because there was every possibility that the identity slips on M.O.1 and M.O.2 at the time of chemical examination were detached from M.O.1 and M.O.2. On this count the case of the prosecution cannot be disbelieved. In the entire cross examination P.W.1 and P.W.2, there were no doubtful circumstances to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. They have no reason to depose false against the accused. Similar is the situation in respect of the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.5. 28. It is the specific case of the prosecution and the evidence that A.2 was owner of the auto bearing No. A.P.05-V-7805. A.2 took interim custody of the vehicle as per the record borne out. Being the owner of the vehicle, he has to explain as to the circumstances in which he found himself along with A.1 in a forest area with two gunny bags in the back side of the auto. There is no explanation from the defence explaining the manner in which A.1 and A.2 came into custody of the police. Absolutely, the testimony of P.W.4 and P.W.5 remained unshaken during the course of entire cross examination. There is no explanation from the defence explaining the manner in which A.1 and A.2 came into custody of the police. Absolutely, the testimony of P.W.4 and P.W.5 remained unshaken during the course of entire cross examination. Under the circumstances, the evidence on record quietly establishes that A.1 and A.2 were caught hold of red handedly while they were transporting ganja in auto bearing No. A.P.05-V-7805. 29. It is to be noted that the prosecution has the benefit of certain presumptions under the provisions of NDPS Act. 30. Now, it is relevant to refer herein certain presumptions as contemplated under Section 35 of the N.D.P.S. Act. According to Section 35 of the Act, in any prosecution for an offence under this Act which requires a culpable mental state of the accused, the Court shall presume the existence of such mental state but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution. The explanation of the above shows that “culpable mental state” includes intention, motive knowledge of a fact and belief in, or reason to believe a fact. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madan Lal vs. State of H.P. 2004 (1) ALT (Cri.) 30 (SC) held that once possession is established, then the person who claims that it was not a conscious possession has to establish it because how he came to be in possession is within his special knowledge. 31. According to Section 54 of the N.D.P.S. Act, it contemplates certain presumptions. According to the said section in trials under this Act, it may be presumed, unless and until the contrary is proved, that the accused committed the offence under this Act in respect of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance for the possession of which he fails to account satisfactorily. 32. It is no doubt true that the presumption under Section 54 of the N.D.P.S. Act and the presumption under Section 35 would arise after the prosecution discharged its burden to prove the recovery of the contraband from the accused. In my considered view, the prosecution discharged its burden about the recovery of contraband from the possession of the accused. In such circumstances, it is for the accused to prove the contrary. In my considered view, the prosecution discharged its burden about the recovery of contraband from the possession of the accused. In such circumstances, it is for the accused to prove the contrary. The accused had no semblance of say much less probable say to prove contrary. 33. Having considered the evidence available on record, I am of the considered view that the prosecution before the learned Special Judge cogently established about the recovery of the ganja from the possession of A.1 and A.2 beyond reasonable doubt. 34. Now coming to the chemical examiner report marked under Ex.P.8 reveals that the samples were of ganja. The prosecution quietly established the link between M.O.1 and M.O.2 with that of ganja that was seized from the accused. The learned Special Judge as evident from the judgment has analyzed the evidence and furnished sound reasons to believe the case of the prosecution. The judgment of the learned Special Judge finding the present appellants guilty was on the basis of sound reasons. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered view that the prosecution categorically proved beyond reasonable doubt that A.1 and A.2 were found in possession of commercial quantity of ganja in the manner as alleged, as such, they were rightly found guilty for the charge framed. 35. Under the circumstances, the judgment, dated 08.09.2009 in NDPS Sessions Case No. 31 of 2007, on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of the Cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985-cum-I Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry, is sustainable under law and facts, as such, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 36. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed and the conviction and sentence imposed against A.1 and A.2 in NDPS Sessions Case No. 31 of 2007, on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of the Cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985-cum-I Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry, dated 08.09.2009, shall stand confirmed. 37. A.1 and A.2/Appellants are directed to surrender before the learned Special Judge on or before 29.12.2023 to give effect to the judgment of the learned Special Judge. If they failed to surrender before the learned Special Judge, the learned Special Judge shall take necessary steps by issuing Non-Bailable Warrants against A.1 and A.2 to give effect to the judgment in NDPS Sessions Case No. 31 of 2007. If they failed to surrender before the learned Special Judge, the learned Special Judge shall take necessary steps by issuing Non-Bailable Warrants against A.1 and A.2 to give effect to the judgment in NDPS Sessions Case No. 31 of 2007. 38. The Registry is directed to forward the copy of the judgment along with original records to the learned Special Judge with a special messenger on or before 26.12.2023. 39. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.