Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 348 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Iliyas

2008-02-05

G.S.SARRAF

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Hanuman Singh, S.H.O. police station Gaigal, district Ajmer in pursuance to a secret information received by him recovered crushed poppy straw weighing 1 tonne, 5 quintal and 60Kg. from truck RJ 19 G 4139 on 8.6.2004. The accused appellant Iliyas is said to be the driver of the truck and the accused respondent Jabardeen is the owner of the truck. The allegation is that it was in the knowledge of the accused respondent Jabardeen that crushed poppy straw was being transported by his truck. On these facts the accused respondent Iliyas was charged under Section 8/15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') whereas the accused respondent Jabardeen was charged under Section 25 of the Act. The prosecution examined nine witnesses. The accused respondents in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that they were innocent. However, they did not lead any evidence in their defence. 2. By judgment dated 7.11.2006 passed by Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Ajmer in criminal case No. 9/2005 the accused respondent Iliyas was acquitted of the offence under Section 8/15 of the Act whereas the accused respondent Jabardeen was acquitted of the offence under Section 25 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the judgment, the appellant State has filed this criminal leave to appeal. 4. Heard learned P.P. and learned counsel appearing for the accused respondents. 5. The accused respondent Jabardeen, after his arrest, is alleged to have given in writing that the accused Iliyas was the driver of the truck RJ 19 G 4139 but the former in his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC. has denied this fact and has said that he was forced to put his signatures on Ex.P20. No test identification parade has been held after the arrest of the accused Iliyas and he has not been identified in the court also. The prosecution has not produced any witness who could say that the accused Iliyas was the driver of the truck. No test identification parade has been held after the arrest of the accused Iliyas and he has not been identified in the court also. The prosecution has not produced any witness who could say that the accused Iliyas was the driver of the truck. It is clear that the alleged information given in writing by the co-accused Jabardeen during the time when he was in custody that the accused Iliyas was the driver of the truck and later denied by him is not admissible in evidence and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused respondent Iliyas was the driver of the truck No. RJ 19 G 4139 at the time of the recovery of the contraband. Learned trial court has thus rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused respondent Iliyas was the driver of the truck. 6. As regards the accused respondent Jabardeen merely because a person is the owner of the vehicle that by itself is not sufficient to sustain the charge under Section 25 of the Act unless there is evidence that he knowingly permitted his vehicle to be used for commission of the offence by another. There is not an iota of evidence that the accused respondent Jabardeen ever had any knowledge or connived with the driver for transporting the contraband. Learned trial court has, therefore, rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused Jabardeen had any knowledge of the contraband being transported by his truck. 7. There is thus no ground for interference.Consequently, leave to appeal is refused and the appeal stands dismissed.Leave to Appeal Refused - Appeal Dismissed. *******