Pritam Singh @ Parvana vs State of Punjab

Jitendra Chauhan, J.—The present appeal has been flied against the order dated 18.10.2010, whereby the learned Judge, Special Court, Jalandhar, ordered confiscation of the vehicle i.e. Tata Safari bearing registration No. PB-08-BA-6730, from which the alleged heroin was recovered. The brief facts of the case are that the said vehicle was being used by the appellant and his co-accused Jagtar Singh, who were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court vide judgment/order dated 29.4.2010, for carrying the contraband. The recovery in the instant case is One Kg. of heroin, which is a commercial quantity.

As per procedure, notice under Sections 60(3) /63 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, was served upon the appellant, the real owner of the vehicle, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

The learned Special Judge vide impugned order dated 18.12.2010 ordered the confiscation of the vehicle.

The appellant has preferred this appeal against confiscation order, which was admitted on 10.2.2011. This appeal was ordered to he heard alongwith CRA No. 1374 SB of 2010, vide order dated 6.12.2011.

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the order passed by the learned Special Judge confiscating the vehicle during the pendency of CRA No. 1374 SB of-2010, is illegal.

On the other hand, the learned State counsel argued that the vehicle in question was being used for transporting the narcotics. The trial ended upto conviction of appellant and co-accused Jagtar Singh.

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab and perused the record with their able assistance.

Sections 60 and 63 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act read as under:-

Liability of illicit drugs, substances, plants, articles and conveyances to confiscation.-(1) Whenever any offence punishable under Chapter IV has been committed, the narcotic drug, psychotropic substance, the opium poppy, coca plant, cannabis plant, materials, apparatus and utensils in respect of which or by means of which such offence has been committed, shall be liable to confiscation.

(2) Any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance lawfully produced, imported inter-State, exported inter-State, imported in to India, transported, manufactured, possessed, used, purchased or sold along with, or in addition to any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance which is liable to confiscation under sub-section (1) and the receptacles, packages and coverings in which any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, materials, apparatus or utensils liable to confiscation under sub-section (1) is found, and the other contents, if any, of such receptacles or packages shall likewise be liable to confiscation.

(3) Any animal or conveyance used in carrying any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, or any article liable to confiscation under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall he liable to confiscation, unless the owner of the animal or conveyance proves that it was so used without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself, his agent, if any, and the person-in-charge of the animal or conveyance and that each of them had taken all reasonable precautions against such use.

Procedure in making confiscation.-(1) In the trial of offences under this Act, whether the accused is convicted or acquitted or discharge, the court shall decide whether any article or thing seized under this Act is liable to confiscation u/s 60 or section 61 or section 62, and, if it decides that the article is so liable, it may order, confiscation accordingly.

(2) Where any article or thing seized under this Act appears to he liable to confiscation u/s 60 or section 61 or section 62, but the person who committed the offence in connection therewith is not known or cannot be found, the court may inquire into and decide such liability, and may order confiscation accordingly:

Provided that no order of confiscation of an article or thing shall be made until the expiry of one month, from the date of seizure, or without hearing any person who may claim any right thereto and the evidence, if any, which he produces in respect of his claim:

Provided further that if any such article or thing, other than a narcotic drug, psychotropic substance, the opium poppy, coca plant or cannabis plant is liable to speedy and natural decay, or if the court is of opinion that its sale would be for the benefit of its owner, it may at any time direct it to be sold; and the provisions of this sub-section shall, as nearly as may be practicable, apply to the net proceeds of the sale.

(3) Any person not convicted who claims any right to property which has been confiscated under this section may appeal to the Court of Session the order of confiscation.

The appeal filed by the appellant and his co-accused Jagtar Singh stand dismissed by this Court vide order of even date by affirming the judgment passed by the trial Court. The vehicle in question had been taken on superdari by Baldish Kaur, wife of the appellant. It is proved on record that the said vehicle was being used to transport the contraband. The learned Judge, Special Court afforded an opportunity of hearing to the registered owner-appellant The appellant stated on oath that he purchased this vehicle for the use of his ailing wife, who did not step into the witness box for claiming any right in the vehicle. So, it can be safely said that the present appellant is exclusive registered owner of the vehicle of the TATA Safari No. PB-08-BA-6730. From the facts above, it is clearly established on record that the vehicle being in ownership and possession of appellant Pritam Singh was used to transport contraband with his knowledge. The ownership and recovery of the contraband from the vehicle is not in question. The appellant was served u/s 60(3) /63 of NDPS Act and was allowed to lead evidence with regard to uses of the vehicle. It is, thus, conclusively proved that the vehicle in question owned by the appellant was used to transport contraband with his knowledge and permission. This Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned trial Court. As such, the present appeal is dismissed.