IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, J.
Nilu Singh – Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India and Another – Opposite Parties
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 28193 of 2015
Decided On : 21-04-2016
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985–Section 60–Confiscation of vehicle–It is a settled legal position that Section 60 would come into play only after conclusion of trial–In case, trial court comes to a conclusion that accused persons are guilty of offences under the Act vehicle used in illegal trade of contraband articles can be confiscated. (Para 28)
(2002)10 SCC 290; (2010)6 SCC 7689–Relied.
ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, J.
1. In the present application preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has sought for quashing of the order dated 13.03.2015 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in DRI Case No. 01 of 2011/Tr. No. 10 of 2014 whereby the petition dated 05.02.2014 filed by the petitioner for release of his truck bearing registration No. WB-23 B-1771, which was seized by the DRI Officer of the Muzaffarpur in connection with DRI (NDPS) Case No. 1 of 2011 has been rejected.
2. DRI (NDPS) Case No. 1 of 2011 was instituted on the basis of written complaint dated 25.08.2011 made by one Shivendra Satyarthi, Intelligence Officer, DRI, SRV, Muzaffarpur, for the offences punishable under Section 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (For short “NDPS Act”).
3. According to the complainant, specific intelligence regarding smuggling of huge quantity of ganja concealed in bags containing raw turmeric (Haldi) being carried by truck bearing registration No. WB-23 B-1771, from Assam to Varanasi via Tajpur (Samastipur) was received at the DRI, Sub-Regional Unit, Muzaffarpur and this intelligence was passed to the Deputy Director, DRI, Patna on 25.02.2011. On the basis of the said intelligence, the said truck was intercepted at Tajpur Chowk on 26.02.2011 at about 4 p.m. On inquiry, the two occupants of the vehicles disclosed their names as Babloo Kumar (Khalasi) and Munna Kumar Singh (Driver) and further disclosed that turmeric was loaded on the truck and on further inquiry denied loading ganja in the said vehicle.
4. The complainant has further alleged that the Jute bags loaded on the truck was initially examined in presence of independent witnesses and it was found that some of the Jute bags containing raw turmeric also contained bundles which smelled like Narcotics. Thus, since the truck was fully loaded, the truck was brought to the DRI Office, Muzaffarpur and unloaded. There, in presence of the two independent witnesses and the occupants of the truck, 186 Jute bags containing raw turmeric were found to contain one packet of ganja each, concealed inside it. On weightment of the 186 packets of ganja, it was found to be 2930 kg in weight valued at Rs.1,02,55,000/-. The turmeric on the other hand were found to weigh 10500 kgs. valued at Rs. 4,20,000/- and the truck was valued to be about Rs. 8,00,000/-.
5. The complainant has further alleged that the ganja, turmeric and the truck were seized under Section 43(a) of the NDPS Act as the same were found to be liable to confiscation under Section 60 of the NDPS Act in presence of the two independent witnesses and both the accused. Thereafter, samples from the seized ganja were duly sealed and the cabin of the truck was searched and from inside the cabin invoice, transportation documents showing consignment of turmeric and the ownership documents relating to the said truck were recovered.
6. Thereafter, statement of Babloo Kumar, a cousin of Nilu Singh (petitioner), was recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, wherein he disclosed that one Nilu Singh was the owner of the truck and as per his direction, he along with the driver reached Garam Pani near Golaghat (Assam) where narcotic substance was loaded by one Pradeep Kumar Gogoi and it was consigned for M/S. Rajesh Trading Company, D-2, Visheshwar Gaon, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh.
7. The statement of the driver Munna Kumar Singh was also recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act and he too reiterated similar statement corroborating the statement of Babloo Kumar. Since both the accused had accepted their guilt and knowledge of the possession and transportation of ganja for lure of money, they were both arrested on 27.02.2011 under Section 43(b) of the Act by the officer of the DRI, Muzaffarpur on 28.02.2011. Both of them were produced before the Court, from where, they were remanded to judicial custody. The complainant has also alleged that the re
General Insurance Council and Ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2010) 6 SCC 768
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.