Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 101 (HP)

RAJEEV KUMAR v. STATE OF H. P.

2000-05-09

C.K.THAKKER

body2000
JUDGMENT C.K. Thakker, C J. (Oral): This Revision is filed by the petitioner against an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, on 12th May, 2000, in Cr. Misc. 4 of 2000. 2. The case of the prosecution was that a truck bearing No. HR 26-5465 belonged to Rajeev Kumar (petitioner herein), was carrying 49 bags of hemp. It was seized by the Police Officer, Police Station Renuka Ji in connection with an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). An application was made by the petitioner to release the truck during the pendency of the trial, but learned Judge did not think it fit to grant the prayer and, accordingly, the application was dismissed. It is this order which is challenged in the present revision petition. 3. Notice was issued pursuant to which the State has appeared. 4. I have heard Mr. Anil Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr M.L. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the State. 5. Mr. Anil Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the action of the learned Sessions Judge in not releasing the truck is contrary to law and unlawful. Drawing my attention to the relevant provisions of the Act, particularly Sections 60, 61 and 63, he has submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence nor he was aware about the fact of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance being carried in the vehicle. It was, therefore, obligatory on the part of the learned Sessions Judge to release the vehicle. He also submitted that the petitioner is having only one truck and it is a source of his livelihood. A criminal case will take a considerable long time. If the petitioner will be deprived of the possession of the truck, he would starve. He, therefore, submitted that on appropriate terms and conditions, the truck may be ordered to be released. 6. The prayer was contested by Mr. M.L. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General. He submitted that looking to the provisions of the Act in their proper perspective, and the underlying object thereof during the pendency of the proceedings, ordinarily, release of vehicle should not be granted. 6. The prayer was contested by Mr. M.L. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General. He submitted that looking to the provisions of the Act in their proper perspective, and the underlying object thereof during the pendency of the proceedings, ordinarily, release of vehicle should not be granted. He also submitted that when the truck was involved in connection with an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Act, if the Offence is proved and the Court is satisfied that the petitioner was aware about the narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, being carried in it, not only the accused can be dealt with in accordance with law but the "conveyance is also liable to confiscation. In any case, the action of confiscation, which can be said to be punitive in nature, has not been ordered. It is only during the pendency of the criminal case that it is seized. Such an action cannot be said to be contrary to law or otherwise illegal. On the contrary, according to the learned counsel, release of a vehicle at this stage may make the provisions of Section 60 and the primary object nugatory. 7. In this connection reliance was placed on a decision of the Bombay High Court in B.S. Rawant v. Shaikh Abdul Karim & Anrs., (1989 Cri. L.J. 1998). 8. I am conscious of the fact that as on today, the case is pending. Making any observation one way or the other, may prejudice either of the parties. I, therefore, refrain from making any observation at this stage. At the same time, however, prima facie, the submission of learned Deputy Advocate General appears to be well founded that when a case is registered under the Act and the allegation is that the truck was used for carrying narcotic drug and/or psychotropic substance, the action of seizure of such truck cannot be said to be unlawful or contrary to law. Only on that ground, in my opinion, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge deserves to be confirmed and is confirmed. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. 9. It is open to the learned counsel for the petitioner to request the learned Judge for early/expeditious disposal of the case. Petition dismissed