IMPORTANT POINT
Conscious Possession--Possession must be to the knowledge of the offender-In the absence of such evidence, no presumption under Section 54 of the Act without addressing itself to the question of possession could be drawn against the accused.
Conscious Possession--Burden of proof lies on prosecution.

1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 18-3-1995 passed by the learned Special Judge, Karnal, whereby the accused-appellant-Avtar Singh (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") was convicted under S. 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1.00 lakh for keeping in his possession 80 kgs. of poppy husk, whereas Balwinder Singh and Harnam Singh were acquitted of the charges framed against them.

2. The story as put forward by the prosecution is that on 31-7-2000 SI Subhash Chand along with other police officials was coming from the village Amupur towards village Brass in a Government jeep in connection with patrolling. When they reached near Kacha path leading to Dera Tehal Singh then one Mahendra jeep without registration number came from the side of village Brass. On seeing the police jeep, the driver of the jeep i.e. accused-Avtar Singh applied brakes all of a sudden. On seeing the police, two persons, whose names were later on known as accused-Binder Singh and Baba Harnam Singh, fled away whereas accused-Avtar Singh was apprehended. On search of the jeep two gunny bags containing 40 kgs. each of poppy husk were lying in the rear portion of the jeep. One sample of 500 grams from each bag was taken out and the remaining poppy husk on weighment came to be 39½ kgs. in each bag. The poppy husk as well as the samples were taken into possession. Ruqa was sent to the police station on the basis of which FIR was registered against the accused. Ultimately the remaining two accused were also arrested and all the three were put to trial.

3. Formal charge under S. 15 of the Act was framed against the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. During trial, the prosecution examined C. Pritam Singh (P.W. 1), C. Nasrudeen (P.W. 2), H. C. Baldev Singh the then MHC of the police station (P.W. 3), Rangi Ram (P.W. 4), Gurcharan Singh (P.W. 5), Inspector Hari Kailash the then SHO of the police station (P.W. 6), H. C. Pawan Kumar (P.W. 7), DSP Raj Singh (P.W. 8), ASI Ram Niwas (P.W. 9) and SI Subhash Chand (P.W. 10).

5. When examined under S. 313, Cr. P.C. the accused while denying all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them pleaded their false implication in the case and further submitted that they were present in front of the Gurudwara and were performing Kar Sewa, then police jeep came there which went out of order and the police party asked them to push the same but they refused. The police party apprehended them and after concocting a false story, booked them for the present offence.

6. Ultimately, the trial ended in conviction of the accused-appellant-Avtar Singh, whereas Balwinder Singh and Baba Harnam Singh were acquitted of the charge. Hence, this appeal.

7. I have heard Mr. S. P. Soi, learned counsel for the appellant-Mr. K. S. Godara, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana and perused the record of this case very carefully.

8. The prosecution version from the very inception is that when the police party was patrolling, a Mahendra jeep driven by the accused-Avtar Singh came which was stopped. Avtar Singh was driving the said jeep whereas Baba Harnam Singh and Balwinder Singh, about whom they came to know later on, absconded. The accused-Avtar Singh was apprehended and on search of the jeep, 2 bags containing 80 kgs. of poppy husk were recovered. Without delving deep into the fact whether all the formalities as envisaged under the Act stood complied with by the Investigating Officer, learned counsel for the appellant centered around his arguments precisely on the point that since recovery was effected from the rear seat of the jeep, whereas the accused is said to be the driver, therefore, he cannot be said to have conscious possession of the said contraband particularly when the persons sitting on the rear seat