- (1.)WHEN the matter was called out nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent. We have heard Mr. K. Radhakrishnan learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant who has taken us through the relevant record. The respondent herein was roped in along with three other persons on the allegation that 8.600 kg. of opium was recovered and seized from a Mahindra Jeep on 16.05.1998. This opium was concealed in a specially made secret chamber in the Jeep. The accused namely, Jagvir Singh, OM Parakash, Narender Singh and Muktiar Singh were found travelling in the said vehicle. After completing the required formalities at the spot and on the basis of their statement, all the four accused were arrested under Section 8 read with Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Jeep in question was also seized under Section 60(1) of the said Act. The complaint was filed in the Court of Special Judge, NDPS Case, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan. After the trial the Special Judge convicted the respondent herein and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.1 lac. The other three accused were acquitted. It would be necessary to mention here that the main reason for acquitting the other three persons was that they were not the owners of the jeep and therefore did not know the opium was contained in the secret chamber in the jeep. Therefore, they were not in conscious possession of the said contraband in question. The respondent challenged his sentence and conviction by approaching the High Court of Rajasthan.
(2.)THE High Court by the impugned order dated 19th July,2004 has acquitted the respondent as well upon finding that the case of the respondent was at par with and identical circumstanced as the case of the other three accused persons who were acquitted of the charge. It is observed by the High Court that the main reason for convicting the respondent by the trial court was that the respondent was the owner of the jeep in question and therefore he knew that the said opium was concealed in the secret chamber of the jeep. The respondent appeared as DW -1 and had taken the defence that he was not the owner of the jeep and made a statement that he was falsely implicated in case. Taking into consideration this aspect, the High Court has analysed his case, finding it to be on same footing as that of the three who were acquitted in the following manner:
"I have pondered over the submissions and carefully gone through the material on record. Appellant Jagbir Singh (DW -1) stated on oath that since he was not the owner of the jeep, he made a complaint from Jail to the authorities that he was falsely implicated in the case. Although in the cross examination, Jagbir Singh was neither confronted with the alleged complaint made by him from jail nor he was cross examined in regard to his complaint, the learned Trial Judge in para 40 of the impugned judgment made strange observations that the statement of Jagbir Singh stood falsified from the complaint made by him from Jail in which he admitted that he got arrested with the jeep. Despite the fact that allegations against co - accused OM Prakssh, Mukhtyar Singh and Narendra Singh were the same as that of the appellant, the three co -accused were acquitted by the learned Trial Judge and their acquittal has not been assailed by the Union of India. There is nothing on record that could establish that the jeep in question owned by the appellant and he was in conscious possession of the opium. In my considered view, the case of the appellant is not distinguishable with that of the three co -accused who have been acquitted. The observations of the learned Trial Judge made in para 40 are against the record of the case and based on improper appreciation of the statement of appellant. The prosecution has failed to establish the charges under Section 8/18 of NDPS Act against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt."

When it was the specific case of the respondent that he was not the owner of the jeep it was the duty of the prosecution to have a thorough investigation into this aspect. We find that there is no evidence produced on record by the prosecution which would show the ownership of the vehicle was in the name of the respondent. We, therefore, agree with the conclusion of the learned High Court and the case of the respondent could not be distinguishable from the other co -accused who have been acquitted and the High Court has rightly accorded the benefit of doubt to the respondent. We do not find any merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed accordingly.