Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(7) Petitioner No.2 owns a vehicle Innova car bearing regd.No.HR-45A- 1499 which was also lying parked in the factory premises of petitioner No.1. From the said vehicle, it is alleged that 1100 maroon coloured capsules without make and 470 capsules of Parvon Spas were recovered. As per the chemical report received from Forensic Science Laboratory, all the recovered material contains banned substances and are illicit drugs.

(8) The petitioners could neither be apprehended nor they surrendered, hence they were declared proclaimed offender on 24.04.2014. Regardless of that declaration, a learned Single Judge granted concession on 19.05.2014 and allowed 3 of 6 the petitioners to surrender before the trial court and furnish bail bonds whereupon they were to be admitted to interim bail. The petitioners, however, could not avail the benefit of that order as meanwhile their names surfaced in yet another NDPS case registered vide FIR No.129 dated 19.09.2013 PS Division No.6, Industrial Area, Ludhiana.

(14) As regard to petitioner No.2, admittedly he is not a partner or co- proprietor of the pharmaceutical unit. The only allegation against him is that Innova car owned by him was found parked in the factory premises and 1100 maroon coloured capsules without make and 470 capsules of Parvon Spas were recovered from that vehicle. There is no doubt that if the above-stated contraband is found to have been kept inside the vehicle to the knowledge or with the consent of second petitioner, then he too cannot wriggle out of the embargo created under Section 37(1)(b) of the Act. However, there is some material on record to suggest that petitioner No.2 does not know driving and has kept a driver. The vehicle was not at his residence, rather was parked in the factory of his son. It would be possible to form a definite view only after the evidence is led as to whether or not petitioner No.2 had informed knowledge of the contraband lying in his vehicle. At this stage, the applicability of Section 37(1)(b) of the Act thus becomes debatable.