ORDER

Date : 25-01-2021 Heard Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel representing the DRI.

2. By this application u/s 482 CrPC the petitioner prays for quashing the criminal proceeding in NDPS Case No. 6/2020 u/s 20(b) (ii) (C) read with Section 23/27A/29 of the NDPS Act pending before the court of learned Special Judge, NDPS.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle in which the contraband drugs were seized originally belonged to the present petitioner, who was the registered owner of the vehicle. However, later on he had sold the vehicle three months before the occurrence, and as such, he was not liable for the offence involving the vehicle, which was sold long before the commission of the offence. In support of the contention raised, the petitioner has also produced copy of an agreement for sale.

4. The facts of the case in brief was that on the basis of the secret information, the DRI officials intercepted the truck bearing registration No. AP 31 TA 3299 on 04-08-2019. During search, 128.150 kg of ganja was found in the vehicle. At the time of search and seizure, the driver of the vehicle Pandeveti Ramkrishnan was found in the vehicle and accordingly, he was arrested. The said contraband along with the vehicle was seized and eventually final complaint was lodged by Apurba Bhattacharjee, Senior Intelligence Officer. On the basis of the said complaint, the learned trial court took cognizance against the petitioner.

5. From the allegation made in the complaint and the materials on record, it is the admitted position that the present petitioner was the registered owner of the vehicle. So far the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the vehicle was sold out to somebody else before three months and the purported deed of sale agreement is concerned, at best the same can be considered to be a defence material, which may be relevant at the time of trial and the petitioner also may obviously rely on the said document at the time of trial, if duly proved.

6. It is a trite law that while considering an application u/s 482 CrPC, as a general rule, the court cannot consider the defence material or any document, which may be produced in defence of the accused. Only exception to the general rule is that, if the document or material sought to be advanced or produced by the accused/petitioner is of unimpeachable nature and of such sterling quality, before which, prosecution could not stand at all, only in such extreme cases, the defence material can be looked into. An agreement for sale, in my considered view, can by no stretch of imagination be considered to be a document falling in the category of unimpeachable document before which the prosecution cannot stand, reason being, that unless this document is duly proved in course of evidence, it does not have any evidentiary value.

7. From the materials on record including the complaint, it appears that the contraband was seized from the vehicle, of which the petitioner was the registered owner.

8. Section 25 of the NDPS Act provides that whoever, being the owner or occupier or having the control or use of any house, room, enclosure, space, place, animal or conveyance, knowingly permits it to be used for the commission by any other person of an offence punishable under any provision of this Act, shall be punishable with the punishment provided for that offence. Thus, Section 25 of the Act provides that if the owner of the conveyance permits his conveyance to be used by someone else, the registered owner shall be liable for the offence committed by the person to whom the vehicle was given for use.

9. Section 35 of the Act provides that in any prosecution for an offence under this Act which requires a culpable mental state of the accused, the Court shall presume the existence of such mental state but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged