Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1167 (PAT)

Laisangthem Sanathomba Singh v. State of Bihar

2004-11-24

body2004
ORDER 1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 7.3.2003 passed by the Special Judge, Kishanganj in Special Case No.8 of 2001 refusing to release the bus bearing registration No. MN-04-5255 Which was seized by the officials of the Custom Department on 24.3.2001 at Khagara Railway Crossing (N.H. 31) Kishanganj. 2. On 23rd March, 2001, an information was received in the office of Customs (P) Kishanganj that contraband ganjas are being transported from Imphal to Calcutta by bus bearing the aforesaid name through Kishanganj. The information was conveyed to the Superintendent Customs (P) Kishanganj who on receiving the said information constituted the preventive team of the officers of the Custom Department to intercept the bus. Thereafter, the officers deputed came near Faring Gola for intercepting the said bus. At 5.50 A.M. on the same date, the bus passed through the Faring Gola on the National Highway 31. The bus was chased and the same was stopped at Khagra Railway Crossing, Kishanganj. The preventive team gave their identity and the purpose for searching the bus. They asked the driver of the bus if the bus should be conducted before the Magistrate or the Gazetted Officer, the driver declined. The driver and Khalasi disclosed their names and addresses. In the meantime, one of the passengers tried to escape. He was chased and apprehended and disclosed his name as K. Arun Singh and the said man confessed that Ganja was being transported by the bus in secret cavity on the floor of the bus and claimed himself to be the owner. Thereafter, the secret cavity was located with the help of driver and Khalasi. Thereafter, the driver, khalasi and K. Arun Singh requested that the secret cavity should be opened at safe place because large number of persons have assembled and thereafter on their request the bus was taken to Custom Office and on breaking the secret cavity in presence of independent witnesses 225 Kgs worth Rs.4,50,000/- was recovered and the bus and the articles were seized. Thereafter, the driver and Khalasi of the said bus and also Arun Singh gave their voluntary statement and they were interrogated by Superintendent Customs (P), Kishanganj and also disclosed the name of the owner of the bus. Subsequently, the complaint was filed. 3. Thereafter, the driver and Khalasi of the said bus and also Arun Singh gave their voluntary statement and they were interrogated by Superintendent Customs (P), Kishanganj and also disclosed the name of the owner of the bus. Subsequently, the complaint was filed. 3. The petitioner claiming, to be the owner of the bus filed an application for release of the bus which has been rejected by the Special Judge, Kishanganj as stated above. Thereafter, the present application has been filed. 4. Admittedly, the seizure has been made under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) wherein there is a provision for seizures as well as confiscation of the seized contraband goods and the vehicles etc. used for keeping the contraband goods. 5. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner of the bus and he was not present and as such the vehicle should be released as it cannot be claimed that the Ganja was in possession of the petitioner or was kept in the vehicle with his knowledge. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Department, on the other hand, submitted that the materials on record clearly show that special cavity was created on the floor of the bus and the same could not be imagined to have been done without the permission or knowledge of the owner of the bus. It was not the case that the Ganja was carried out by keeping it on the top or inside the bus, but here the Ganja was carried out by creating special cavity on the floor of the bus. Thus, prima facie, at this stage, knowledge has to be presumed that the Ganja was kept with the active connivance of the owner of the bus. 7. Section 61 of the Act contains a provision that any goods used for concealing any narcotic drug, psychotropic substance or controlled substance which is liable to confiscation under this Act shall also be liable to confiscation and Section 63 contains a provision for making confiscation. In such a situation allowing the bus to be released will not be proper specially when the confiscation can be made at any stage. Even if the accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged, there is a provision for confiscation under the provisions of the Act. 8. In such a situation allowing the bus to be released will not be proper specially when the confiscation can be made at any stage. Even if the accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged, there is a provision for confiscation under the provisions of the Act. 8. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is of no assistance as in some cases during trial it was found that possession cannot be attributed to the owner and in that case acquittal was attributed. In this case, no such finding can be given that the ganja was found to have been kept in a concealed cavity inside on the floor of the bus without knowledge of the owner. 9. Accordingly the prayer for release of the bus is rejected.