Crl. Misc.-M No.34150 of 2009(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc.-M No.34150 of 2009(O&M) Decided on :14.12.2009 Jagmeet Singh ... Petitioner versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Ms. Poonam Tara, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.S.Brar, Sr. DAG, Punjab. **** 1.Whether Reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC praying for quashing the order dated 20.10.2009 passed by Special Judge, Amritsar declining to release the vehicle bearing No.PB-02-AW0914 on supardari. Brief facts of the case are that the above mentioned car was intercepted and heroin of 4 kgs. was recovered from it. The person driving the car was arrested and FIR No.33 of 2009 under Sections 21/25/29/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as 'Act') was registered against him. It is noteworthy that the petitioner who is the registered owner of the aforesaid vehicle, claimed that Crl. Misc.-M No.34150 of 2009(O&M) -2- he had loaned the above said vehicle to the accused – Amanpreet Singh for domestic work. When the petition for releasing the car on supardari was filed before Special Judge, the investigating agency gave a report that the car was not required and that they had no objection if the same was released on supardari. However, the ld. Special Judge by impugned order dated 20.10.2009, dismissed the application for release of car on supardari since the investigation was not complete. Today, learned State counsel on instructions of ASI Satnam Singh, has stated that the investigation is complete. However, he has relied upon the Section 60 of the Act to argue that the vehicle is liable for confiscation. Section 60 is to the following effect: “60.Liability of illicit drugs, substances, plants, articles and conveyances to confiscation: (1) Whenever any offence punishable under this Act has been committed, the narcotic drug, psychotropic substance, controlled substance, opium poppy, coca plant, cannabis plant, materials, apparatus and utensils in respect of which or by means of which such offence has been committed, shall be liable to confiscation. (2) Any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance (or controlled substances) lawfully produced, imported inter-State, exported inter-State, imported into India, transported, manufactured, possessed, used, purchased or sold along with, or in addition to, any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance (or controlled substances) which is liable to confiscation under sub section (1) and there receptacles, packages and Crl. Misc.-M No.34150 of 2009(O&M) -3- coverings in which any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance (or controlled substances) materials, apparatus or utensils liable to confiscation under sub section (1) is found, and the other contents, if any, of such receptacles or packages shall likewise be liable to confiscation. (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 section (1) or sub section (2) shall be liable to confiscation, 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.” Thus, three ingredients which are mentioned are: i) lack of knowledge of the owner ii)absence of connivance iii)A finding that the said owner took all reasonable precautions against such illegal use of the vehicle. In my opinion, the very fact that the petitioner is not an accused, makes it clear that the first two attributes are satisfied that is to say the petitioner had no knowledge or connivance in regard to the alleged illegal purpose for which the car was being used. As regards question of reasonable precautions, the same would be decided during the trial. Further, the action of releasing the car on supardari would not render the vehicle not to be liable for confiscation if the final order of Section 60 are not answered in favour of the owner. Crl. Misc.-M No.34150 of 2009(O&M) -4- Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court titled as Balbir Singh @ Fauji versus State of Punjab in CRM-M No.26499 of 2009 in which by order dt. 27.11.2009 this court released the vehicle after relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat AIR 2003 Supreme Court, 638 wherein while dealing with Section 451 of Cr.PC, the Apex Court observed as under: “In our view, the powers under Section 451, Cr.PC should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely: (1)Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation. (2)Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody (3)If the proper panchnama before handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the Court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail. It is a matter of common knowledge that vehicles which are subject matter of case property and are parked in the police stations for such a long time of over two years, reduces into junk and could not be put to any use in case of acquittal of the accused.” Keeping in view the observations made by this Court as well as the provisions of Section 60 as are in my opinion, applicable to this case. I set aside the impugned order and direct the Special Judge, Amritsar to release the vehicle in question to Crl. Misc.-M No.34150 of 2009(O&M) -5- the petitioner on supardari. This petition is allowed. December 14, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE