Punjab-Haryana High Court
The Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. vs State on 10 September, 1992
Equivalent citations: 1993CRILJ498
JUDGMENT N.K. Jain, J.
1. This appeal Under Section 454 Cr. P.C. read with Section 63(3) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 against the judgment dt. 3-1-89 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh whereby he has refused to release the truck No. DEL-3097.
2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant is engaged in the hire purchase business having its head office at Jallandhar and branch office at Delhi. It was alleged that under hire purchase agreement dt. 30-5-85 the truck No. DEL-3097 was hired to M/s. Swaran Singh Hardayal Singh on certain conditions. It was also alleged that the truck was seized in connection with the offence committed under the N.D.P.S. Act and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge vide his order dt/ 3-1-89 confiscated the truck and rejected the application of the appellant for release of the truck. Hence, this appeal.
3. Mr. Bhagwati Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the application of the appellant has been rejected only on the ground that the driver Tarsem Kumar, Davendra Singh and Inderjit Singh were convicted Under Section 8/18 of the N.D.P.S. Act and were sentenced to imprisonment and also sentence of fine was imposed on them. He further submits that no proceeding Under Section 25 of the Act has been initiated and no challan has been filed. He submits that the aforesaid accused persons have been acquitted of the offence by this Court in S. B. Cr. Appeal No. 300/88 on 10-8-92.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor as well as perused the record.
5. Admittedly, the appellant gave the truck in dispute on hire to M/s. Swaran Singh Hardayal Singh on certain conditions and one of the conditions was that M/s. Swaran Singh Hardayal Singh will not use or permit the vehicle to be used in contravention of any law or rules having the force of law and to indemnify the owner against each and every such loss etc. The appellant's case is that the truck was used without his knowledge and it took all precaution while giving the truck on hire as per agreement. Though in the hire purchase agreement ownership remained with the Company and registration is joint. There is nothing on record showing that any proceedings have been taken against the hirer M/s. Swaran Singh Hardayal Singh. The prosecution has neither filed any challan Under Section 25 nor led any evidence to the effect that the appellant knowingly permitted the said M/s. Swaran Singh Hardayal Singh to use the truck for illegal activities. The evidence has come that the appellant has no knowledge and has not committed any offence. Thus, it cannot be said that the appellant has not proved that the truck was used without its knowledge or connivance Under Section 60(3) of the Act. On the contrary, the appellant took reasonable precaution while giving truck on hire purchase on agreement. Learned Public Prosecutor has not been able to controvert these facts. Thus, in the absence of knowledge having been attributed and taking into consideration the fact that the alleged accused persons viz., Tarsem Kumar, Davendra Singh and Inderjit Singh,who were found in possession of the, truck have been acquitted of the . offence by this Court on 10-8-1992, further more this Court vide its order Dt/-1-2-1989 gave the truck on 'superdaginama' on the security of Rs. one lac, I deem it just and proper to set aside the impugned order dt. 3-1-1989 confiscating, the truck.
6. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The order dt/ 3-1-1989 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh is set aside. The security furnished by the appellant at the time of taking truck on 'superdaginama' in pursuance of the order of this Court dt./-1-2-1989 stands discharged.