LAWS(P&H)-1998-1-149

JAGDISH CHANDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On January 07, 1998
JAGDISH CHANDER Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE judgment and order dated 5.6.1997 S/Shri Bahader and Jeevan were convicted and sentenced in a case under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. Vide para No. 13 of the order dated 6.6.1997 the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa also held that the case property recovered from the accused along with the tractor-trolley in question stands confiscated to the State for being disposed of in accordance with law in due course of time. It was further ordered that Sapurdarinama and surety bond of the tractor-trolley in question stood cancelled and the S.H.O. of the concerned police station was directed to take over the tractor-trolley in question and produce the same in the Court for further proceedings so that the tractor-trolley may be disposed of in accordance with law. Bahader and Jeevan filed two criminal appeals No. 582-SB-1997 and 597-SB-1997 and both these appeals are still pending for decision in this Court.

(2.) THE present appeal No. 648-SB-1997 has been filed by Shri Jagdish Chander showing himself to be the owner of the tractor-trolley. The main contention of the appellant is that before passing the order of confiscation he was not heard by the trial court. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant Shri H.S. Kamboj has referred the provisions of Section 60(3) of the N.D.P.S. Act. From the order dated 6.6.1997 it is not clear that at any point of time the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa gave the opportunity to the present appellant to prove that the tractor-trolley was used without his knowledge, connivance and consent. In this view of the matter directions are given to the trial court to give an opportunity to the appellant to prove his innocence in terms of Section 60(3) of the Act. Resultantly, the present appeal stands disposed of with the directions to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa to afford an opportunity to the appellant and then to decide the issue whether the tractor-trolley was liable to be confiscated to the State for being disposed of in accordance with law or not.