IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

242 Date of decision: 27.10.2025 GURVINDER SINGH ......Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB .......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ *****

Present: - Mr. Ivneet Singh Pabla, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Senior DAG, Punjab.

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

CRM-12132-2018 The matter was listed for hearing of an application for seeking release of the vehicle bearing registration No. PB-11-AZ-9001, however, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to address arguments on the main appeal itself.

Learned State Counsel also has no objection to the same.

The prayer is hence accepted. The main appeal, which was admitted on 15.02.2018 is accordingly taken on Board today itself.

Application is accordingly disposed of as not pressed.

1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the order dated 08.02.2016 passed by the learned Special Court, Patiala, whereby the vehicle of the petitioner bearing registration No. PB-11-AZ-9001 has been ordered to be confiscated.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contends that FIR No. 165 dated 28.06.2013 was registered against one Baljinder Singh @ Bikar, on the statement of SI Satnam Singh. As per the fact set out in the said statement, on 28.06.2013, while SI Satnam Singh along with other police officials was patrolling at the bus stop of Dera Gobind Nagar, Shutrana, they noticed a car, make Optra, bearing registration No. PB-11- AZ-9001, approaching from the side of Shutrana. SI Satnam Singh signalled the driver to stop, however instead of complying, the driver attempted to flee by accelerating the vehicle. The police party chased and apprehended the driver, who, upon interrogation, disclosed his identity as Baljinder Singh @ Binder, son of Jagdish Singh, resident of Dera Kahangaria, near Bhakhra Canal. Upon conducting a search, the police recovered 55 kilograms of poppy husk from the said vehicle. Investigation was thereafter completed, and a final report was filed before the competent Court. The appellant, being the registered owner of the said vehicle, was initially nominated as a suspect. However, during the course of investigation, he was found innocent and was never tried for any offence.

3. Subsequently, vide judgment dated 01.12.2015, Baljinder Singh @ Bikar was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and vide order dated

05.12.2015, was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of ₹1,00,000/-.

4. However, by a separate order dated 08.02.2016, the Judge, Special Court, Patiala directed confiscation of the appellant’ s vehicle on the sole premise that the appellant, having appeared as PW-7, had deposed that the accused had not taken the car from him. The Court, therefore, inferred that the appellant had attempted to support the accused through his testimony and, consequently, deemed him to be in knowledge of the offence committed by the co-accused, thereby justifying confiscation of his vehicle.

5. Learned counsel further contends that the conclusions drawn by the Special Court are based on conjectures and are thus inherently flawed. He submits that the provisions of Section 60(3) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 are not attracted to the present case. It is submitted that the element of mens rea or criminality is a sine qua non for invoking the said provision, which the prosecution has miserably failed to establish. No adverse inference could thus have been drawn merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises. Counsel submits that the very fact that the respondent-State had initially nominated the appellant as an accused but, upon investigation, found him innocent, clearly demonstrates that the appellant neither possessed knowledge of the offence nor acted in connivance with the co-accused from whose act