The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of 'knowingly' permitting the use of premises for the commission of an offense under Section 25 of the NDPS Act, and the burden of proof on the prosecution to establish the accused's knowledge and permission.

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

1. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentenced under Section 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the NDPS Act), for providing his tractor-trolly to other convicts Surjit Singh and Satpal Singh, from whose possession, the police had recovered three bags containing 34 Kg. 500 g. poppy husk each and one bag containing 15 Kg. 500g poppy husk, the appellant had come up before this Court by filing the present appeal in the year 1998.

2. As per the prosecution case, on 16.01.1996, ASI Chanan Singh (PW2), along with his team, was present for patrolling. While patrolling, they saw a tractor-trolly bearing Registration No. PB-11-4451 and signaled it to stop. The convict Surjit Singh (A-1) was driving the tractor, and Satpal Singh (A-2) sat in the trolley. They tried to run away but were apprehended. The conduct of Satpal Singh raised suspicion, and on this, the police official conveyed their attention to both Surjit Singh (A-1) and Satpal Singh (A-2) that they intended to search their trolly, and they also gave them an option under Section 50 of NDPS Act. Both the accused did not exercise the said option and agreed to search by the police officer himself and their statements Ex. PA & PB were recorded. During such search, the investigator recovered four bags containing poppy husk; three of them weighed 34 kg 500g each of poppy husk, whereas the fourth bag had 15 kg 500g. Thus, in all, the police recovered a total of 119 kg of poppy straw. The investigator took two samples of 250 grams from each bag for testing. Samples and residue, i.e., 117 kg. Poppy straw was taken into possession vide recovery memo Exts. P6 to P9. The investigator also arrested both the accused and took the tractor's documents into their possession.

3. The investigation revealed that the accused owned the tractor because he had purchased the same through an agreement dated 06.11.1995, i.e., two months before the seizure. On this, the police recovered the said affidavit, and he was arrested on 02.02.1996. On completion of the investigation, the officer-in-charge of the police station launched prosecution against the main accused under section 15 and against the present appellant under sections 25 read with 15 of the NDPS Act. The trial Court framed the charges under Section 15 of the NDPS Act against accused Surjit Singh and Satpal and under Section 25 of the NDPS Act against accused Harwinder Singh in which the accused did not plead guilty.

4. Vide above captioned judgment, the Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution version against all three accused and convicted them for the commission of offenses as captioned above. Feeling aggrieved, all three persons filed a separate appeal before this Court.

5. Vide judgment dated 30.07.2008, a coordinate Bench of this Court dismissed all three appeals, i.e., CRA-73-SB-1998, CRA-87-SB-1998, and CRA- 167-SB-1998. The appellant Harwinder Singh challenged his dismissal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the grounds that he was unrepresented in the High Court. On this, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 22.08.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1895 of 2009, set aside the judgment of this Court qua the present appellant and remanded his appeal, i.e., for a fresh hearing.

6. I have heard counsel for the appellant as well as counsel for the State and I have gone through the record.

7. Since the findings qua search and seizure qua Surjeet Singh (A-1) and Satpal Singh (A-2) from whom the police had recovered the poppy husk in the tractor-trolly in which they were found present stand affirmed, as s