Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2259 (RAJ)

Jagnandan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2019-08-21

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2019
JUDGMENT : Manoj Kumar Garg, J. 1. Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under Sec. 454 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dt. 21.09.2011 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 08/2007 by which the learned Judge confiscated the appellant's Hero Honda motorcycle bearing Engine No. RJ-04D60M02399 and Chassis No. 04D63C02889. 2. Counsel for the appellant submits that no notice was served upon the appellant in compliance of Sections 60 to 63 of NDPS Act. It is submitted that the appellant is the registered owner of the motorcycle in question, therefore before confiscation a notice under Secs. 60 to 63 of NDPS Act was required to be served upon the appellant and the proceedings in compliance of Sections 60 to 63 of NDPS Act have not been complied with. It is submitted that in such circumstances, the judgment of confiscation of motorcycle in question is per-se illegal and liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, the counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Jaiprakash vs. State of Rajasthan, 2003 (3) R.Cr.D. 354 (Raj.). 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the trial Court has discussed the reason of confiscation of motorcycle in question. 4. I have considered the arguments advanced before me and perused the impugned judgment. 5. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the trial Court has discussed the reason of confiscation of motorcycle in question. 4. I have considered the arguments advanced before me and perused the impugned judgment. 5. In the case of Jaiprakash (Supra), this Court has observed as under: ^^18- esjs }kjk ;ksX; tu vfHk;kstd dks Hkh bl lEcU/k esa lquk x;kA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk bl Ádj.k esa thi uEcj vkj0ts0 31 lh 1857 dks jkT;lkr djus dk vkns’k fn;k gS] exj /kkjk 60 o 63 vf/kfu;e] 1985 ds Áko/kkuks dks ns[krs gq, vkSj /kkjk 63¼2½ ds ijUrqd dks ns[krs gq, v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk ,slk vkns’k ns fn;k gS tks dkuwuu bldh iqf"V ugha dh tk ldrh A pwafd bl Ádj.k esa vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) dksbZ vkjksi Hkh Áekf.kr ugha ik;k x;k gS] ,d vfHk;qDr iwoZ esa gh cjh fd;k tk pqdk gS vkSj bu nksuksa vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) Hkh ,Q-,l-,y- fjiksVZ dks lk{; esa ugha i<+s tkus ls pwafd bu nksuksa vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) vkjksi Áekf.kr ugha ik, x, gS] bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk tCr’kqnk thi vkj ts 31 lh 1857 dks jkT;lkr djus dk vkns’k fcuk lqus ikfjr fd;k gS] mls Hkh drbZ oS/k ugha Bgjk;k tk ldrkA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk thi dks jkT;lkr djus ds tks vkns’k fn, x, gSa] vihyk.V xksihjke }kjk ÁLrqr vihy la[;k 334@2001 ,.M efgUnzk ,oa efgUnzk Qk;usfla;y lfoZl fy- }kjk ÁLrqr QkStnkjh fofo/k ;kfpdk la[;k 95@2002] nksuksa gh Lohdkj fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA exj ;g Ádj.k bl lEcU/k esa cnyh gqbZ ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, iqu% v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dks bl vkns’k ds lkFk ÁfrÁsf"kr fd;k tkuk vko’;d gS fd pwafd vfHk;qDrx.k dks cjh fd;k tk pqdk gS vkSj fcuk /kkjk 60 ,oa 63 vf/kfu;e] 1985 ds Áko/kkuksa dh ikyuk fd, v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us okgu thi vkj ts 31 lh 1857 dh jkT;lkr djus ds vkns’k fn, gSa] ml vkns’k dks vikLr djrs gq, thi ds lEcU/k esa iqu% dkuwu vuqlkj nksuksa i{kksa dks lqudj thi Lokeh o Qk;usal dEiuh efgUnzk ,.M efgUnzk Qk;usfla;y lfoZl fy- dks lquokbZ dk volj nsdj o vfHk;qDrx.k dh nks"kflf) Áekf.kr ugha gksus ds rF; dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, thi ds fuLrkj.k dk iqu% dkuwu vuqlkj vkns’k ikfjr djsaA** 6. In the instant case, before confiscation of the Hero Honda motorcycle no notice was served upon the appellant as per Sections 60 to 63 of NDPS Act and also the proceedings in compliance of Sections 60 to 63 of NDPS Act have not been complied with, in such circumstances, the impugned judgment of confiscation of the motorcycle is suffered from illegality and infirmity. 7. Hence, the impugned judgment dt. 21.09.2011 confiscating the motorcycle in question is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial Court with the direction to proceed 'with the proceedings of confiscation of the motorcycle in question after making compliance with the provisions of Sections 60 to 63 of NDPs Act. The criminal appeal is disposed of accordingly.