KULVINDAR KAUR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision under Sec. 397/401 Cr. P. C. is directed against the order dated 29. 9. 2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh in criminal misc. case No. 78/2004, whereby the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 451 Crpc seeking interim custody of truck No. PB-08f-4805, which was seized by the police while it was transporting the poppy straw. The offence against Avtar Singh and Gurdev Singh, who were in possession of the poppy straw was registered under Sec. 8/15 of the N. D. P. S. Act. During the pendency of the criminal case against Avtar Singh & Gurdev Singh, an application was filed by the present petitioner seeking interim custody of the truck on the ground that the truck is registered in the name of her husband Jaga Singh, who is said to have expired on 11. 10. 2001. Before the Trial Court, the petitioner failed to produce any evidence showing her title or right to possess the truck in question. The truck in question was seized by the police and taken in custody from co-accused Avtar Singh and Gurdev Singh, at any rate, it was not taken from possession of the present petitioner. The seized truck is a subject-matter of enquiry under Sec. 60 of the N. D. P. S. Act, 1885. Sub-section (3) of Sec. 60 of the N. D. P. S. Act reads as under: " (3) Any animal or conveyance used in carrying any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance [or controlled substance], or any article liable to confiscation under Sub-sec. (1) or Sub-sec. (2) shall be liable to confiscations, 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 that each of them had taken all reasonable precautions against such use. "

(2.) IN the instant case, the petitioner has failed to produce any evidence even prima facie to show her title or right to possess. At any rate, in absence of a title, the vehicle can be released in favour of the person, from whose possession it was seized, if he is not accused of any offence. IN the instance case, the Trial Court finding no material to hold the petitioner entitled to possess the vehicle, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner and in my view rightly so. If the petitioner is legal heir of Joga Singh, in whose name, the vehicle stands registered, she can get the vehicle transferred in her favour on the basis of her being legal heir of the deceased. IN this view of the matter, I do not find any error in the order of Trial Court.