VIJAY SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAMBIR Singh was challaned by the Police of Police Station Saddar, Gurgaon, under Section 61 (i) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, hereinafter called the Act, on the allegation that he was found in possession of 279 bottles of licit country liquor while carrying the same in the car bearing registration No. DLI 2338, on 19th June, 1971, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurgaon. Vijay Singh, owner of the said car, made an application to the Magistrate on 21st June, 1971, that since the aforesaid car of which he was the owner was taken in possession by the police in connection with an excise case, State v. Rambir, the same be given on Sapurdari to him, otherwise that would get damaged if it was allowed to be kept in police custody. In compliance with the order dated 22nd June, 1971, of the learned Magistrate passed on the aforesaid application, that car was given on Sapurdari to the applicant Vijay Singh, owner of the car. Since Rambir Singh accused, during trial, did not claim himself to be owner of the car in question involved in commission of the offence, the learned Magistrate, vide his order dated 31st May, 1973, directed that the notice be issued to the owner of the car to show cause as to why the car be not confiscated to the State, if the accused was convicted of the charge. The trial Court, vide its judgment dated 5th July, 1973, ultimately convicted Rambir. Singh accused under section 61 (1) (a) of the Act, and sentenced him to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and fine of Rs. 2,000/ -, with the direction that in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months. The bottles of liquor and the Kattas were directed to be confiscated to the State. As far as the ear was concerned, the statement given by Vijay Singh, its owner, as A.W. 1 that that car was borrowed by the accused for going to Gurgaon as the sister of the accused was stated to be ill and that he did not know about the smuggling of liquor in that car and, therefore, the car was not liable to be confiscated, was not relied upon by the trial Court. Rather, the trial Court observed that the stand taken up by Vijay Singh appeared to be an after -thought because in the application for releasing the car on Sapurdari, no such facts were mentioned. That Court further observed that the owner should have proved that the accused was not in the habit of smuggling liquor which would have shown that he gave the car in question to the accused bona fide and, as such, the evidence produced by the owner that the car in question was not used for bringing liquor with his knowledge or consent was not cogent. Accordingly, the trial Court, vide its said judgment, directed that the car be also confiscated to the State.

(2.) TWO appeals were preferred against that judgment dated 5th July, 1673, of the trial Court, one No 122/10 of 1973 by Rambir Singh against his conviction and sentence, and another, No. 103/10 of 1973 by Vijay Singh against the direction given by the trial Court that the car shall stand confiscated to the State. The appellate Court affirmed the above findings of the trial Court and dismissed both the appeals vide its judgment dated 20th December, 1973. Vijay Singh, therefore, has come up in revision against the orders of the Courts below, passed regarding the confiscation of his car No. DLI 2338 to the State.

(3.) IN the result, I accept this revision petition, set aside the orders of the Courts below to the extent as stated above and direct for restoration of the car to its owner Vijay Singh Sapurdarinama furnished by Vijay Singh shall stand cancelled.