VIKAS KUMAR SAHU Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is against the judgment dtd. 29/2/2020 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case (NDPS Act) No. 03/2018 whereby though the accused persons namely Shatrughan Nishad and Tukesh Kumar have been acquitted of the charge under Sec. 20 (b) (ii) (C) of NDPS Act but the vehicle of the appellant allegedly used in commission of the offence has been ordered to be confiscated.

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that 14/8/2017 when the vehicle (Maruti Swift) bearing registration number MP 20 CD 0488 was intercepted and it was searched, 230 kg of cannabis was recovered, thereafter, after the investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Sec. 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. After the entire trial, accused Shatrughan Nishad and Tukesh Kumar were acquitted of the charges vide judgment dtd. 29/2/2020. The Court in the said judgment had further directed for confiscation of the vehicle whereby the alleged cannabis was transported.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is registered owner of the vehicle (Maruti Swift) bearing registration number MP 20 CD 0488 which was allegedly involved in commission of offence and seized by the police vide Annexure A/2. The appellant was not at all involved in commission of offence and the accused persons namely Shatrughan Nishad and Tukesh Kumar have already been acquitted of charge under Sec. 20 (b) (ii) (C) of NDPS Act by the trial Court. The impugned order directing confiscation of the vehicle in question is bad-in-law for the reason that no opportunity of hearing afforded to the appellant. The said vehicle was purchased on hire purchase agreement and as such the interest amount is increasing day by day, this vehicle is lying idle and the said vehicle is likely to be damaged due to exposure to sun and rain and, as such, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the vehicle in the police station. Therefore, the impugned order directing confiscation of the vehicle is liable to be set aside and the same be handed over to the appellant by imposing condition as may be deemed fit by this Court.