PREM NARAYAN GUPTA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 454, Cr. PC by accused Prem Narayan Gupta against that part of the judgment by which the Maruti Van belonging to him has been confiscated under Section 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act' ).

(2.) APPELLANT Prem Narayan Gupta and two other persons were prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (i) of the Act and they have been acquitted of this charge by the impugned judgment. It has, however, been held that 1. 87 quintals of ganja was recovered from Maruti Van No. M. P. 18/2349 near Village Jamudi and this van is admittedly of the ownership of the appellant. The Trial Court at the time of delivery of the judgment has directed confiscation of this vehicle.

(3.) NONE has appeared on behalf of the appellant at the time of hearing of this appeal. Section 60 (1) of the Act provides that whenever any offence punishable under Chapter IV [which includes Section 20 (b) (i)] has been committed, the narcotic drug, psychotropic substance etc. shall be liable to confiscation. Sub-section (3) of Section 60 further provides that any animal or "conveyance" used in carrying any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance shall be 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 each of them had taken all reasonable precautions against such use". Thus the burden of proof has been cast on the owner of the vehicle to establish that it was used for carrying the contraband without his knowledge or connivance and he had taken all reasonable precautions against such use. Section 35 of the Act incorporates the rule or presumption of "culpable mental state" which as per Explanation to this section includes "knowledge of a fact" or "reason to believe a fact". Sub-section (2) of Section 35 provides for the standard of proof laid on the accused as being "beyond reasonable doubt". (See: Mohammad Akhtar v. State of M. P. , 1999 Cr. LJ 3779 ). Section 63 provides the procedure to be followed before any order of confiscation is made. There can be confiscation as per Section 63 (1) whether the accused is "convicted or acquitted". The proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 63 lays down that no order of confiscation of an article or thing shall be made without hearing any person who may claim any right thereto and the evidence, if any, which he produces in respect of his claim.