DIGVIJAY KUMAR THAKUR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has been heard through video-conferencing. In the present application preferred under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to set aside the order dated 15.10.2019 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Saran in N.D.P.S. Case No.2 of 2019 (arising out Taraiya P.S. Case No.52 of 2019), whereby the petitioner's petition for release of his truck bearing registration no.BR06G 5190 seized in the aforesaid case, has been rejected. The aforesaid N.D.P.S. case was registered on the basis of written complaint filed by the Drug Inspector submitted to the S.H.O., Taraiya under Section 27 (b) (2) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Section 8 (c) and 22 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter in short referred to as the 'N.D.P.S. Act').

(2.) The complainant alleges that he inspected a truck bearing registration no. BR06G 5190 and the same contained huge quantity of medicine and such medicines were unloaded and verified product wise. He further alleged that the medicine described at page-1 of his report, did not covered by valid bills. Those medicines are ease of cough syrup and Dialex DC Syrup, which also contain Codeine Phosphate which is a product covered under the N.D.P.S. Act. It is further alleged that the driver Pappu Yadav was apprehended and disclosed the name of the petitioner as owner of the Truck and also disclosed one Transport Agency under the banner of Maa Bhagwati Transport Agency loaded the said medicines for its destination at Transport Nagar, Patna and on the basis of the said report of Drug Inspector, a formal F.I.R. was lodged.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has been made an accused on technical ground being an owner of the truck and named by the driver. As a matter of fact, he was neither with the truck nor he was aware of the material being carried by his truck. He further submitted that the truck in question has orally agreed with the Maa Bhagwati Transport Agency to provide service on monthly payment and pursuant to such agreement, he entrusted his truck to the aforesaid Transport Agency and only the Agency is plying his truck for carrying the goods. He further submitted that Maa Bhagwati Agency booked goods of consignor Aradhya Enterprises and M/s Surya Roshni for the consignee M/s P.P. (Arun Jee), G.M., Road and Mr. A.K. & sons, G.M. Road, Patna and also for M/s Baleshwar Drugs Patna. The truck was intercepted while the same was on way to Patna and at that time, the petitioner was present at Darbhanga in his house and he was not at all aware about the nature of goods carried by the truck in question. He lastly submitted that from the report of the informant, it appears that each bottle of cough syrup of 100 ml contained 1/5 gram of codeine phosphate and the said codeine phosphate is not the N.D.P.S. material rather the only codeine is placed in the list of N.D.P.S. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the seized truck. He has been made accused in the present case as owner of the truck. Petitioner has filed a petition for release of the truck but the learned Court below without taking into consideration of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 290 and in the case of General Insurance Council and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others reported in (2010) 6 SCC 768 rejected the petition vide order dated 15.10.2019 on the ground that the same is not maintainable because on 26.07.2019 a report has been submitted by the police that the matter has been forwarded to the District Magistrate for confiscation. He has submitted that due to the seizure of the truck, the petitioner is suffering financially and if the truck is not released, the same would become junk, as it is lying in open space in the police station.