I shall now examine evidence led to see if the one count charge was proved beyond reasonable doubt. 1. That the substance is Indian hemp. Preliminary test conducted by PW2 using United Nations Testing Kit revealed that Exhibits D1- D12 was Indian hemp. This was further confirmed by the report issued from the forensic science laboratory, Lagos. See Exhibits E, E2. I am satisfied that both courts below were correct in finding as a fact that Exhibits D1- D12 was/is Indian hemp or Cannabis Sativa. 2. Whether the substance was in possession of the appellant To have or to own is to possess. A thing is in possession of a person if it is found on him. The passengers in the lorry were ordered to disembark with their luggage. The appellant and all the passengers complied. The appellant identified his luggage. A search of the appellant’s luggage was carried out by PW1 in his presence, and therein was found neatly wrapped Indian hemp weighing in at 26 kilograms. It is conclusive that Exhibits D1- D12 were in possession of the appellant, since it was in his luggage, and he never denied being the owner of the luggage. 3. Whether the substance was in the appellant’s possession to his knowledge and without lawful authority. Since the appellant has not denied ownership of his luggage and Indian hemp was found in his luggage, in the absence of a defence to show that the substance was in his possession with lawful authority it was safe for the learned trial judge, to conclude that the substance was in his possession without lawful authority. Signing Exhibits A and B, Certificate of Testing Analysis, and Packing Forms on the 17th day of January 2000, the same day he was arrested, after preliminary tests were done implies that the appellant was in full agreement with everything in both Exhibits. That in effect means that the appellant agreed the substance in his luggage is/was indeed Indian hemp or cannabis sativa. PW2 did a preliminary test on the substance recovered from the appellant's luggage with a United Nations Testing Kit. The result was positive for Indian hemp. He sent some quantity of the substance to Lagos for further expert analysis and the result was also positive, Exhibit E, E2. This to my mind is conclusive evidence that Exhibits D1 - D12 found in possession of the appellant is/was Indian hemp. Before I conclude this judgment I must turn my attention to some points raised in the appellants brief, and they arePW2 said on oath that he sent 2 grams of the substance for laboratory analysis but 5 grams was shown in the Drug analysis report. The Drug Analysis Report, Exhibit E, E2 reads in part “Some quantity of dry vegetable materials weighing about 5.00 grams enclosed in a heat sealed transparent evidence pouch ….” While relevant extracts from the testimony of PW2 runs as follows: In evidence in chief he said: “… I also took some quantity of it and sent it to Lagos for further expert analysis on 18/7/02” And in cross-examination the witness said: “….. yes I took two grams out of the quantity for my test and the one I will use for sending for further laboratory analysis at Lagos.” There was no re-examination. After a diligent review of the above extract from the testimony of PW2 it cannot be said whether it was 2 grams or 5 grams of the substance that was sent to Lagos for further laboratory analysis. “I took 2 grams …… and the one I will use for sending for further laboratory analysis …..” implies that what was sent to Lagos was 2 grams plus an unspecified amount that was sent for further laboratory analysis. On the state of PW2’s evidence it cannot be said with accuracy if it was 2 grams or 5 grams that was sent for further laboratory