1998 Supreme(Raj) 1210

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
M.A.A.Khan, J.
Karnail Singh & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Anr. - Respondent
Crl. Appeal Nos. 449 & 557 of 1994.
Decided On : 2-09-1998

The provisions of Sections 42, 43, 55, and 60 of the NDPS Act were interpreted and applied to determine the validity of the search and seizure of the contraband, the applicability of the provisions of the NDPS Act, the issue of conscious possession of the contraband, and the right of the owner of the confiscated vehicle to a hearing.

Headnote:

NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT - SECTION 42, 43, 55, 60 - SEARCH AND SEIZURE - CONVEYANCE - PUBLIC PLACE - CONSCIOUS POSSESSION - CONFISCATION OF VEHICLE - OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO OWNER - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.

Fact of the Case:

A preventive party intercepted a truck driven by Karnail Singh, appellant, and found three gunny bags containing 21 rexine bags of opium concealed below cartons in the vehicle. Chemical analysis confirmed the presence of opium. Karnail Singh was convicted under sections 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), and the truck was confiscated. Ballaur Singh, the registered owner of the truck, appealed against the confiscation.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the search and seizure of the contraband were valid and that the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, which apply to searches of buildings, conveyances, or enclosed places, were not applicable in this case. The court found that the truck was intercepted in a public place and that the provisions of Section 43, which apply to searches and seizures in public places, were applicable. The court also held that the provisions of Section 55, which require a police officer in charge of a police station to seal seized contraband, were not applicable to officers of other departments who have been invested with the powers of an officer-in-charge of a police station under Section 53 of the NDPS Act. The court further held that Karnail Singh was in conscious possession of the contraband and that the appellant had not been given an opportunity to prove that the truck was used without his knowledge or connivance, as required by Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act.

Issues: 1. Whether the search and seizure of the contraband were valid? 2. Whether the provisions of Section 42 or Section 43 of the NDPS Act were applicable? 3. Whether the provisions of Section 55 of the NDPS Act were applicable? 4. Whether Karnail Singh was in conscious possession of the contraband? 5. Whether the appellant was given an opportunity to prove that the truck was used without his knowledge or connivance?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the search and seizure of the contraband were valid because the truck was intercepted in a public place and the provisions of Section 43 of the NDPS Act, which apply to searches and seizures in public places, were applicable. 2. The court found that the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, which apply to searches of buildings, conveyances, or enclosed places, were not applicable in this case because the truck was intercepted in a public place. 3. The court held that the provisions of Section 55 of the NDPS Act, which require a police officer in charge of a police station to seal seized contraband, were not applicable to officers of other departments who have been invested with the powers of an officer-in-charge of a police station under Section 53 of the NDPS Act. 4. The court held that Karnail Singh was in conscious possession of the contraband because he was the driver of the truck and there was no evidence to suggest that the contraband could have been or were kept in the vehicle without his knowledge or in his absence. 5. The court held that the appellant had not been given an opportunity to prove that the truck was used without his knowledge or connivance, as required by Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act.

Final Decision: 1. Karnail Singh's conviction under sections 8/18 of the NDPS Act was upheld, but his sentence was reduced from 15 years to 10 years and the fine was reduced from Rs. 1.5 lakhs to Rs. 1 lakh. 2. Ballaur Singh's appeal against the confiscation of the truck was allowed, and the issue of disposal of the vehicle was remitted back to the trial court for a fresh decision after giving Ballaur Singh an opportunity to be heard.