Cuttack: Orissa High Court has ruled that a vehicle driver cannot be convicted for transporting contraband articles if he is unaware about the nature of substance carried by a passenger in his bag.

A single-judge bench of Justice S.K. Sahoo gave the ruling while acquitting a person of charges of transporting ganja - for which a trial court had sentenced him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment, along with imposition of a fine of Rs 1 lakh.

The Court of the Sessions Judge-cum-Judge of Special Court, Sambalpur, convicted Amarnath Naik in the case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and awarded him the punishment on April 17, 2015. He had filed an appeal petition against the verdict in high court the same year.

But, the high court felt the reasons assigned by the trial court in convicting the appellant appeared to be "faulty and defective" as the defence plea had not been "properly appreciated and error of record had been committed".

"The conduct of the appellant in stopping the vehicle, his non-attempt to flee away from it even though having sufficient opportunity for the same are the circumstances that lead to an inference that the defence plea is more probable and acceptable," Justice Sahoo observed in his judgment on November 30.

Justice Sahoo further felt that there was no material to show that the appellant had real knowledge of the nature of the ganja concealed in the bags which were found inside the vehicle.

"Rather, it appears that he was compelled to carry the bags by two persons without being aware of its contents, and both the persons fled on seeing the police officials leaving the appellant to suffer the destiny," he said.

Justice Sahoo ruled that if a driver of a vehicle after exercising due diligence was unaware about a passenger's luggage content or compelled to carry such bag under threat or fear of death and it he satisfies the court in that respect by adducing cogent evidence, it would be a travesty of justice to convict him for transporting contraband. Accordingly, the appellant was acquitted of the charges under section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the act.