Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
PANKAJ JAIN, J.
Lakhveer Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
C.R.R. No. 3062 of 2019
Decided On : 09-05-2024
CONFISCATION - VEHICLE RELEASE - The court analyzed the provisions of Section 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which stipulates that vehicles used in the commission of narcotic offenses are liable to confiscation unless the owner proves lack of knowledge or connivance. The court found that the trial court failed to consider the petitioner's status as a non-accused party, leading to the decision to remand the case for reconsideration of the vehicle's release.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought the release of a vehicle seized in connection with an FIR against two accused involved in transporting contraband. The trial court rejected the application, stating the vehicle was liable to confiscation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court overlooked the fact that the petitioner was not a co-accused and did not consider the implications of Section 60(3) regarding the owner's knowledge of the vehicle's use in the crime.
Issues: Whether the vehicle can be released to the petitioner, who is not a co-accused, under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that under Section 60(3), the burden of proof lies on the owner to demonstrate that the vehicle was used without their knowledge or connivance, which was not adequately addressed by the trial court.
Result: The court set aside the trial court's order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration regarding the release of the vehicle.
JUDGMENT :
(Pankaj Jain, J.) :
This is a revision directed against the order dated 21.09.2019, whereby application filed by the petitioner seeking release of the vehicle on superdari stands rejected holding that the vehicle is liable to be confiscated.
2. Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order submits that the petitioner is not one of the nominated accused in the present FIR. Reference is being made to para 2 of the reply filed by the State. As per which, the FIR was registered against two accused namely Maan Singh s/o Mukhtiar Singh and Bhinder Singh @ Bhalla and during the investigation name of one Jagsir Singh @ Babbu s/o Jang Singh cropped up.
3. State counsel however submits that the vehicle was seized from the possession of the main accused namely Maan Singh s/o Mukhtiar Singh and Bhinder Singh @ Bhalla who were using the same for transportation of the contraband as 3 kg 500 gms of poppy husk was recovered. He thus submits that the Court below has passed a well-reasoned order holding that the vehicle cannot be released being liable to be confiscated.
4. I have heard rival contention of the counsel representing the parties and have gone through the records of the case.
5. Section 60 of the 1985 Act reads as under:-
6. Section 60(1) provides for confiscation of the apparatus, materials and utensils etc. which have been used in commission of the offence. However, Sub-Section 3 thereof provides that conveyance used in carrying narcotic drug shall be liable to be confiscated, unless the owner of the conveyance proves that it was so used without his knowledge or connivance. Admittedly, the petitioner who is the registered owner of the vehicle is not one of the co-accused. Trial Court while dismissing the application filed by the petitioner has missed the aforesaid vital aspect.
7. In view thereof, impugned order dated 21.09.2019 is hereby set aside. Matter is remanded back to the Special Court to decide the application afresh within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
8. Petition stands disposed of.
The legal principle established is that the registered owner of a vehicle used in a narcotic offense is entitled to a hearing on the issue of knowledge or connivance before confiscation can be ordere....
The interpretation of statutory provisions, such as Section 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and the strict requirement for the vehicle to be used in carrying the contr....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the balancing of the statutory mandate of confiscation under Section 60 of the NDPS Act with the practical considerations of the petitioner's ne....
The court emphasized the liability of vehicles used in carrying narcotic substances to confiscation, while also considering the owner's innocence and the practical implications of indefinite seizure.
A vehicle seized under the NDPS Act can be released to its registered owner if no confiscation order has been issued, provided ownership is substantiated.
The court emphasized that an indefinite seizure of the vehicle would not serve any purpose and that the owner, who had not been implicated as an accused, should be allowed to reclaim the vehicle.
THE COURT HAS THE DISCRETION TO GRANT INTERIM CUSTODY OF A VEHICLE SEIZED UNDER THE NDPS ACT DURING TRIAL, CONSIDERING THE EXCEPTION PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 60(3) OF THE ACT, WHICH ALLOWS FOR THE RELE....
The court established that while the statutory burden on the owner to save the seized conveyance from confiscation had not been discharged, the release on superdari of the impounded vehicle was maint....
The court ruled that vehicles involved in narcotics offenses should not be released during trial, emphasizing strict enforcement of confiscation provisions under the NDPS Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
