Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 702 (MP)

RAJ KOUR RANDHABA v. STATE OF M P

2009-06-18

RAKESH SAKSENA

body2009
Judgment ( 1. ) APPELLANT has filed this appeal against the order dated 1. 11. 2006, passed by the Special Judge (NDPS), Jabalpur, in MJC no. 3/2006, directing confiscation of the Truck bearing Registration No. M. P.-20-D-7770 under Section 60 (3) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. ( 2. ) IN brief, the facts of the case are that the appellant Smt. Raj kour Randhaba is the registered owner of the aforesaid truck. She is mother of Ravindra Randhaba. Ravindra Randhaba used to ply the aforesaid truck on her behalf since last about 11 years. On 19. 3. 2002, bhedaghat Police checked the aforesaid truck and found accused ravindra Randhaba carrying 727 Kgs. and 400 Gms. of Ganja in it on the National Highway No. 7 near village Bahdan. Ravindra was prosecuted under Section 8/20 (b) (ii) (B) of the Narcotic Drugs and psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. After trial, the offence against him was found proved and he was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 15 years with fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (rupees two lakh)by the trial Court by order dated 24. 9. 2003. In the same order, learned trial Court directed confiscation of the truck in which the aforesaid contraband was being transported. ( 3. ) APPELLANT, on the ground that she was the registered owner of the truck, she had no knowledge about commission of the offence by her son, therefore, she was entitled to the custody of the truck and that the order passed by the trial Court under Section 60 (3) of the narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 directing confiscation of the truck was illegal, filed an appeal before the High court, which was registered as Cr. A. No. 1735/03. High Court by order dated 27. 4. 2005 set aside the order of confiscation passed by the trial court and directed the trial Court to pass a fresh order in respect of disposal of the truck after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Trial Court held fresh enquiry and after recording the evidence of Smt. Raj Kour Randhaba again passed the order of confiscation of the said truck. The said order is subject matter of this appeal. ( 4. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is registered owner of the truck. Trial Court held fresh enquiry and after recording the evidence of Smt. Raj Kour Randhaba again passed the order of confiscation of the said truck. The said order is subject matter of this appeal. ( 4. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is registered owner of the truck. He has filed the copies of registration and insurance papers to prove the said fact. He submits that for last 15 years appellant was plying the said truck through her son Ravindra randhaba (accused) and for some time through a driver. Whenever her truck was used by her son or the driver, she was informed about the nature of the consignment. However, on 19. 3. 2002 when ravindra carried the contraband in the truck, she had absolutely no knowledge about that fact. Her son had not informed her anything about his indulgence in that criminal activity. The truck was used for carrying contraband without her knowledge or connivance. On being noticed by the trial Court, she appeared as a witness and stated on oath that she had absolutely no idea that Ganja was being carried in her truck. Counsel submits that in this view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the trial Court directing confiscation of the truck is liable to be set aside. ( 5. ) LEARNED counsel for the State submits that in view of the statement of appellant before the trial Court, that whenever her son used the truck, he always informed her about the nature of the goods he transported and that she plied the truck through her son, it cannot be held that she had no knowledge about her sons carrying the contraband in the said truck. ( 6. ) I have heard the counsel of both the sides and perused the record. ( 7. ( 6. ) I have heard the counsel of both the sides and perused the record. ( 7. ) SECTION 60 (3) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances act, 1985 provides as under: "60 (3) Any animal or conveyance used in carrying any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance [or controlled substance], or any article liable to confiscation under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be liable to confiscation, unless the owner of the animal or conveyance proves that it was so used without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself, his agent, if any, and the person-in-charge of the animal or conveyance and that each of them had taken all reasonable precautions against such use. " ( 8. ) BARE perusal of the above provision indicates that the conveyance used in carrying the narcotic drug or any other article liable to confiscation under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be liable to confiscation, unless the owner of the animal or conveyance proves that it was so used without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself or his agent. In the present case, while opportunity was granted to appellant to adduce evidence, she appeared before the court and stated that at the relevant time his driver Gopal had informed her from Andhra Pradesh that they were transporting Jaggery for Rs. 14,000/- out of which Rs. 7,000/- were received by them and rs. 7,000/- were due. According to her, neither driver nor accused ravindra informed her as to whose consignment they were transporting. It was only after 4-5 days she came to know that her truck was seized by the police for carrying Ganja. For last 11 years, she was plying the truck through Ravindra Randhaba, but she never received any complaint of his carrying any contraband or illegal article. She had full confidence that her son would not indulge in any unlawful activity. She categorically denied suggestion made by the Prosecutor that she had knowledge that accused Ravindra was carrying Ganja from Andhra Pradesh, because it fetched higher fare. ( 9. ) EXCEPT the evidence of appellant Smt. Raj Kour Randhaba, there is no other evidence on record to indicate that she had knowledge or she had connived with her son for transportation of contraband. ( 10. ( 9. ) EXCEPT the evidence of appellant Smt. Raj Kour Randhaba, there is no other evidence on record to indicate that she had knowledge or she had connived with her son for transportation of contraband. ( 10. ) IT is also significant to note that police did not give any notice to appellant or made her accused in the case. This goes to indicate that police itself had no clue that the appellant was in connivance with the accused or had permitted her son to carry the contraband. ( 11. ) IN this view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the court below directing confiscation of the aforesaid truck deserves to be set aside. It is undisputed that the appellant is the registered owner of the truck. ( 12. ) IN the result, this appeal is allowed. The order dated 1. 11. 2006 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS) Jabalpur in MJC No. 3/2006 directing confiscation of the truck bearing registration number MP-20-D-7770 is set aside. The aforesaid truck shall be released and delivered to appellant, if it is not required in any other case.