Amrik Singh vs State of Punjab

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.

CRM No. 9674 of 2014

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, prayer made in the application is allowed. In the prayer clause of the main petition i.e. CRM No. M-7196 of 2014 as also in the head note, Section 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short "the Act") be added along with Section 15 of the Act in FIR No. 62 dated 3.7.2013. Accordingly, the same shall now read as Sections 15, 25, 61, 85 of the Act.

Application disposed of.

CRM No. M-7196 of 2014

This order shall dispose of the present petition preferred u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which prayer has been made for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 62 dated 3.7.2013, under Sections 15, 25, 61, 85 of the Act., registered at Police Station Kot Fatta, District Bathinda.

On 14.3.2014, the petitioner had been directed to join investigation and to appear before the Investigating Officer on 19.3.2014. Simultaneously, interim protection as regards arrest had been granted to the petitioner.

Learned State counsel, upon instructions from ASI Gurmel Singh, would apprise the Court that the petitioner has since joined the investigation.

That apart, the recovery of the contraband as per prosecution version was effected on 3.7.2013 from the vehicle in question which was being driven by Dharam Mohd. @ Dharma and Nazar Mohammad who was also apprehended as he was stated to be working as conductor on the vehicle.

The present petitioner is sought to be implicated with the aid of Section 25 of the Act alleging to be the owner of the vehicle.

Section 25 of the Act reads in the following terms:

Punishment for allowing premises, etc., to be used for commission of an offence.-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.

A bare perusal of the provision would make it clear that the offence u/s 25 of the Act would be made out only if the owner of the conveyance knowingly permits the same to be used for the commission by any other person of an offence punishable under the provisions of the Act.

A perusal of the FIR in question would, in itself, reveal that there is no allegation/assertion on the part of the prosecution as regards the present petitioner knowingly permitting the other co-accused to use the vehicle in question with regard to an offence punishable under the Act. As such, argument raised by the learned counsel that the offence u/s 25 of the Act having not been made out against the present petitioner, prima facie, has merit.

Accordingly, without making any observations on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. Order dated 14.3.2014 passed by this Court is made absolute.

Petition disposed of.