Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 173 (UTT)

Ranjeet Singh Rawat v. State of Uttarakhand

2019-03-07

LOK PAL SINGH

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 01.05.2018 passed by Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Dehradun, in case crime no.64 of 2018 State vs. Chandramohan, whereby said court has rejected the application moved by the revisionist for release of vehicle Honda Activa in his favour. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 10.04.2018 an FIR was lodged by respondent no.3 at P.S. Cantt. Dehradun against one Chandramohan alleging therein that on 10.04.2018 while checking at Kaulagarh Chowk, the driver of Scooty registration no.UK 07BL 1407 after seeing the police officials tried to escape from the spot, but was apprehended by the police personnel. On being asked, accused disclosed that he is carrying Charas with him. Upon inspection, 520 gm of Charas was found whereafter the accused was taken into custody and the vehicle in question was confiscated u/s 60 of N.D.P.S. Act. The revisionist, claiming himself to be the registered owner of Scooty, applied for its custody before the trial court. The trial court heard the revisionist and perused the provisions contained in Section 60 of N.D.P.S. Act and observed that the revisionist has not pleaded that without his knowledge or connivance the vehicle has been used for transporting the contraband and that under which circumstances, the revisionist’s vehicle was with the accused. Learned trial court, also placed reliance on two judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, and rejected the application of the revisionist. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the revisionist was seeking interim custody of the vehicle by way of application but the trial court dealt with the matter and rejected the application as if it was dealing with the confiscation proceedings. According to the learned counsel, while passing the impugned order, the trial court has totally misinterpreted the provisions of N.D.P.S. Act. To buttress his argument, learned counsel would place reliance upon a judgment rendered by Allahabd High Court in the case of Santosh Kumar vs. State of U.P., (1999) 39 ACC 620 and would refer paras 6 and 7, which are extracted hereunder: “6. The provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 60 of the N.D.P.s. Act are applied when confiscation proceedings are drawn before the authority concerned. The vehicle shall not be confiscated, if it is used without knowledge of the owner. The provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 60 of the N.D.P.s. Act are applied when confiscation proceedings are drawn before the authority concerned. The vehicle shall not be confiscated, if it is used without knowledge of the owner. This legal proposition ought to have been taken into consideration while disposing of the application of the revisionist. 7. Apart that this Court in the case of Mohd. Hashim v. State of U.P. and in may other cases, has held that the confiscation proceedings shall not be a bar to the release of the vehicle used in the carrying/transporting the contraband drugs, on interim basis.” 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist would further submit that the while dismissing the application of the revisionist the trial court has referred two judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court viz. Ganga Hire Purchased Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Punjab and others (1999) 5 SCC 670 and Union of India vs. Dinesh Kumar Verma (2005) 5 SCC 330 , but none of the judgments were found published in the law books. 5. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the revisionist and have gone through the case-laws referred by the trial court as well as carefully perused the judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the revisionist. 6. As regards the judgment relied on by the counsel for the revisionist, the Allahabad High Court while dealing with the issue, has placed reliance on another judgment of its Court. This Court finds that the Allahabad High Court has not considered the issue for release of vehicle in question. More so, the ratio of the judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and is, therefore, of no help to the revisionist. 7. Now, in so far as the judgments cited by the trial court that have been disputed by the counsel for the revisionist, is concerned, the first judgment cited is Ganga Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Punjab and others, (1999) 5 SCC 670 . Particulars and citation of this judgment is found correct and it is related to the issue involved in the present case. Paras 2 and 3 are relevant, which are extracted hereunder: “2. Particulars and citation of this judgment is found correct and it is related to the issue involved in the present case. Paras 2 and 3 are relevant, which are extracted hereunder: “2. …The very purpose for engrafting subsection (3) of Section 60 of the NDPS Act is to have it as a deterrent measure to check the offences under the Act in question which have been found to be dangerous to the entire society. In the absence of any definition of “owner” in the NDPS Act, it would be reasonable for us to construe that the expression “owner” must be held to mean the “registered owner” of the vehicle in whose name the vehicle stands registered under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. 3. In view of the aforesaid interpretation of the expression “owner” in sub-section (3) of Section 60 of the NDPS Act, the appellant cannot be permitted to urge that the order for confiscation is bad as he had not knowledge of the fact that the vehicle was used for carrying any narcotic substances. The High Court, therefore, in our opinion, was justified in rejecting the contention of the appellant that the truck in question having been taken on a hire-purchase agreement, for the purpose of sub-section (3) of Section 60, the appellant shall be treated to be the owner.” 8. Another judgment cited by the trial court is Union of India vs. Dinesh Kumar Verma (2005) 5 SCC 330 . This judgment is not published in Volume V instead it is published in Volume IX; and the correct citation is (2005) 9 SCC 330 . Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the judgment are relevant, which are reproduced hereunder: “3. By the impugned order, the High Court has directed for release of the vehicle during trial of the accused for violation of the provisions of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the NDPS Act). In our view, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the High Court was not justified in releasing the vehicle. 4. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order rendered by the High Court is set aside and the prayer for release of vehicle made on behalf of the respondent is rejected. In our view, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the High Court was not justified in releasing the vehicle. 4. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order rendered by the High Court is set aside and the prayer for release of vehicle made on behalf of the respondent is rejected. The respondent is directed to surrender the vehicle within a period of one month from today, failing which it would be open to the police to seize the same and report compliance to this Court within a period of six weeks from today.” 9. Although the trial court has mentioned wrong citation in its judgment but that might be a clerical mistake. The contention raised by the learned counsel is thoroughly misconceived. 10. In view of the above, there appears no illegality or perversity in the order impugned. Criminal revision is accordingly dismissed.