JOGENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal under Section 454 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 01.05.2012, passed by the Special Judge (NDPS Cases) and Sessions Judge, Alwar in criminal misc. application No.253/2012, whereby an application moved by the appellant for handing over the seized truck bearing registration No.H.R.-38E-7896 in Sessions Case No.01/2010, State of Rajasthan Vs. Nishan Singh and Anr., on 'Superdgi' has been dismissed.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the appellant is the registered owner of the seized truck No.H.R.-38E-7896. On 06.07.2009, the aforesaid truck was seized by the police of the Excise Police Station Alwar in FIR No.37/09-10 for offences under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act. In the said FIR, two accused-persons, one Nishan Singh and another Amarjeet Singh, were arrested by the Police and challan filed against them under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act. Sessions Case No.01/2010 commenced on the challan filed. Vide judgment dated 27.03.2012, passed by the Special Judge (NDPS Cases) and Sessions Judge, Alwar, the two aforesaid accused-persons were however acquitted of the offences under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act. The judgment dated 27.03.2012 was put to challenge before this Court by way of a criminal leave to appeal No.92/2012 under Section 378(i)(iii) Cr.P.C. The said criminal leave to appeal was also dismissed by this Court on 02.07.2012.

(3.) MR . Gurvinder Singh, appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the order dated 01.05.2012, passed by the trial court, is a mechanical order and not legally sustainable being contrary to the provisions of law as also contrary to the principle enunciated in numerous decision in similar matters rendered by this Court. It is submitted that the learned trial court has failed to consider that the case of the appellant was in the capacity of registered owner of the seized truck. He submits that the trial court ought to have taken into consideration the factum of the criminal proceedings in which the truck was involved to have concluded against the State. It is further submitted that it cannot even remotely be argued or contested that the seized truck is now required before any criminal court for any purpose whatsoever. Counsel submits that the learned trial court has overlooked the right of the appellant to his property and also the fact that the appellant is in dire need of the said truck for earning his livelihood. It has been further submitted that merely because the truck in issue at one time was involved in an offence under NDPS Act, and was liable to be confiscated in the event of the conviction of the accused (subject to statutory exemption under Section 60(3) of NDPS Act), it cannot be a ground for refusal the delivery of the truck in issue to the appellant – the registered owner thereof – after the end of a failed trial. Counsel has referred to the numerous judgments relating to seizure of vehicles in connection with the offence under the NDPS Act, which are as under : (i) Balmukund Vs. State of Rajasthan [1994 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) P.4] (ii) Khema Vs. State of Rajasthan [2000 Cr.L.J. P.2079] (iii) Balvinder Singh Vs. State [Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1998 P.47] (iv) Vijay Kumar Vs. The State of Raj. [2001 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) P.273]