I. A. ANSARI, J.

” Whether a statement, made by an accused, admitted to have done an act, would amount to his confession if the act done is not admitted to have been done, or is not proved to have been done, knowingly and/or consciously? This is the primary question raised in this appeal. Our search, for an answer to the question, so posed, brings us to the question as to what is a ' confession-” . Yet another question, required to be answered in this appeal, is as to whether there is any difference in the use and probative value of confession made by an accused I the confession of a co-accused.

2. By the judgment, dated 14.08.2008, passed, in Trial No. 16 of 2006, by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. III, West Champaran, at Bettiah, the appellant stands convicted under Section 23 I of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, ' NDPS Act, 1985-” ). In consequence of his conviction, the appellant stands, under the order, dated 20.08.2008, sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of twelve years and pay fine of Rs, 1,00,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, undergo simple imprisonment for three years.

3. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded in the trial, may, in brief, be described thus:

(i) On 15.02.2006, at about 1 a.m., Superintendent of Custom (I) Circle, Bettiah (PW 7) received an information that a Mahindra pick-up van, bearing registration No. BR-04B/4971, was proceeding towards Sugauli carrying ganja, which was hidden inside the said pick-up van. On receiving this information, PW 7, Superintendent of Custom, constituted a team and, on 15.02.2006, at about 3 a.m., the team reached Dubalia. A van, bearing the said registration number, was seen coming. The van was stopped, which was found being driven by the present accused-appellant.

(ii) On conducting search of the said pick-up van, a secret chamber, containing ganja in some packets, was found. The van was, then, brought to the Custom Office, at Bettiah, along with two independent witnesses. Having brought the van, ganja was downloaded and weighed. The ganja was found to be 113 kgs by weight. The van, along with ganja, was, then, seized and seizure list (Exhibit- 1) was accordingly prepared.

(iii) A sample was drawn and the same was sent to Ghaziabad for chemical examination and the chemical examination report (Exhibit-2) was procured.

(iv) The accused-appellant was interrogated and his statement (Exhibit 3) was recorded. The accused, in the said statement (Exhibit-5), denied that he had, knowingly and consciously, carried the ganja, his version being that he was unaware of the existence of false chamber in the pick-up van as he was not a regular driver; rather, he was an electrical mechanic of vehicles and that he had carried the ganja on being told by the owner of the said pick-up van that he was to go to Ballia and, on reaching Ballia, he would be required to contact Dr. Hira and should, thereafter, await instructions of the owner of the seized van.

(v) Having completed the investigation, a complaint, being Unit Case No. 57/Cus/Bth/05-06, was laid, which led to the registration of Trial No. 16 of 2006.

4. At the trial, when a charge, under Section 23 I of the NDPS Act, 1985, was framed against the accused, he pleaded not guilty thereto.

5. In support of their case, prosecution examined altogether eight witnesses. The accused was, then, examined under Section 313 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in the examination aforementioned, the accused denied that he had committed the offence, which was alleged to have been committed by him, the case of the defence being that of denial.

6. Having reached the conclusion that the accused was found to have been carrying ganja, as was alleged against him, the learned trial Court convicted him accordingly and passed sentence against him as indicated above.

7. Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentence, which has been passed against him, the accused