Challenge in this appeal is to judgment rendered by learned Special Judge, Jalgaon, in Special Case No.4 of 2005. By the impugned judgment, both the appellants have been convicted for offence punishable under section 8 read with section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, "NDPS Act"). They are each sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten (10) years and to pay fine of Rs. one (1) lac, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six (6) months.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that P.I. Mr. Gaware was attached to Muktainagar Police Station on May 2, 2005. He received secret information on mobile phone to the effect that appellant No.2 Gopal was transporting bundles of ganja in a truck vehicle bearing registration No.MP-09/KD-0323. That truck vehicle was reportedly coming from Khamgaon and was to go to Barhanpur through Muktainagar. In pursuance to the secret information, PI Mr. Gaware organized for raid. He called two panchas by deputing Police Constable Bhosale. He also called a photographer, weighing scale, weights and 3l1icles required for preparing sample packets. He disclosed intention to carry out the raid to the panchas and other members of the police party. They went to a place on the road, situated near a hotel styled as "Hotel Shree" and waited there. At about 2243 hours, they noticed the truck vehicle which was coming from Muktainagar township. The truck vehicle was intercepted. Appellant No.1 Premnarayan was found driving the truck vehicle whereas appellant No.2 Gopal was found sitting in the cabin of the driver. Both of them were informed about intention to carry out search of the truck vehicle. They were asked as to whether they wanted to search persons of the members of the raiding party. They declined to exercise such option. The search of the truck vehicle revealed load of five (5) bundles (gunny bags), which contained ganja. The ganja was weighed. In all 150 kilograms (kgs.) ganja was found in the five bundles. Thereafter, 100 grams of ganja was collected separately at two places and two separate sample packets were prepared. The sample packets were affixed with paper labels signed by panchas and were sealed at the spot. The photographer clicked photographs of the event from the commencement of the search till the seizure was effected. A Panchanama was drawn and all the five bundles were seized. The sample packets were later on produced before the Muddemal Clerk. A report was lodged by PI Mr. Gaware and, therefore, offence was registered against both the appellants. One of the sample packets was forwarded to the office of the Assistant Chemical Analyser, Aurangabad, for analysis. The report of Assistant Chemical Analyser revealed that the sample comprised of flowering, tops, leaves and stalks of ganja. Both the appellants were chargesheeted for the offence of having illegal possession of contraband ganja without any permit or licence.

3. The appellants denied truth into the accusations. They pleaded not guilty to the charge (Exh-5). Their defence is one of simple denial. They asserted that they were not engaged in transporting of the bundles of ganja and have been falsely implicated in the criminal case. According to them, there were other 2-3 passengers in the truck vehicle. They suggested that those 2-3 passengers alighted on seeing the police party and had fled away. They further contended that they had no knowledge whatsoever regarding the ganja which was being carried in the truck vehicle.

4. At the trial, the prosecution examined in all five witnesses in support of its case. The prosecution also adduced certain documentary evidence. The learned Special Judge was pleased to accept case of the prosecution. The learned Special Judge came to the conclusion that the huge quantity of ganja was found in the truck which was intercepted in the relevant night and that both the appellants were having possession thereof. Consequently, both of the