Sham Sunder, J.:- This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 17.12.2002, and the order of sentence dated 19.12.2002, rendered by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, vide which it convicted Jagir Singh and Sunder Pal, accused/appellants, for the offence, punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’ only) and sentenced them, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years each, and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lac each, and in default of payment of the same, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another period of three years each, for having been found in possession of 10 bags, each containing 40 kgs. poppy-husk, without any permit or licence. However, the trial Court, acquitted Laloo @ Lal Singh and Amrik @ Raju, accused.

2. The facts, in brief, are that on 17.1.1997, a police party headed by Badan Singh, SI, was present, on Budhlada road, near Ghaghar ravine, when a tractor bearing registration No.HYF-1146, to which a trolley was attached came from the side of Ratia. The tractor was signalled to stop. It was stopped. The driver and one occupant sitting in the trolley, however, succeeded in running away, whereas, the remaining two persons, were apprehended. Since, Badan Singh, SI, suspected that some contraband was lying in the tractor-trolley, R.S.Bohria, Naib Tehsildarcum- Executive Magistrate, Ratia, was called to the spot, who came there. On search 10 bags, containing poppy-husk, were found in the tractortrolley. Each bag was found containing 40 kgs. poppy-husk. A sample of 100 grams, from each of the bags, was taken out, and the remaining poppy-husk, was kept in the same bags. The samples, and the bags, containing the remaining poppy-husk, were converted into parcels, duly sealed, and taken into possession, vide a separate recovery memo, alongwith the tractor-trolley. Ruqa was sent to the Police Station, on the basis whereof, formal FIR was registered. Rough site plan of the place of recovery, was prepared. Jagir Singh and Sunder Pal, accused were arrested, at the spot. However, Laloo @ Lal Singh and Amrik @ Raju, accused, who fled away from the spot, were arrested later on. After the completion of investigation, the accused were challaned.

3. On their appearance, in the Court, the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution, were supplied to the accused. Charge under Section 15 of the Act, was framed against them, to which they pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial.

4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Ramesh Kumar, SI (PW-1), Sube Singh, Inspector (PW-2), Om Parkash, Reader to the DSP (PW-3), Ram Phal, HC (PW-4), Ram Kishan, HC (PW-5), Badan Singh, ASI (PW-6), the Investigating Officer, Raghubir Singh Bhodia, Tehsildar (PW-7), Ram Niwas, MHC (PW-8), and Dharambir, ASI (PW-9). Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor for the State, closed the prosecution evidence.

5. The statements of the accused, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., were recorded, and they were put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against them, in the prosecution evidence. They pleaded false implication. They, however, did not lead any evidence, in their defence.

6. After hearing the Public Prosecutor for the State, the Counsel for the accused, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced jagir Singh and Sunder Pal, accused, and acquitted Laloo @ Lal Singh and Amrik @ Raju, accused, as stated hereinbefore.

7. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, the instant appeal, was filed by Jagir Singh and Sunder Pal, appellants.

8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record, of the case, carefully.

9. The Counsel for the appellants, at the very outset, submitted that the link evidence, in the instant case, was totally incomplete. They further submitted th