-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T Kheem Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan S.B.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.365/2002 against the judgment dt.20.12.2001 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Bhilwara, in Sessions Case No.4/2001. Date of Judgment: July 17, 2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DEO NARAYAN THANVI Mr.Mahendra Trivedi, for the appellant. Mr.Vishnu Kachhwaha, P.P. BY THE COURT : 1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Bhilwara dated 20.12.01, whereby he acquitted accused appellants Ganesh, Jamnalal, Rameshwarlal and Gokal u/s.8/15(c) and accused Gaji Singh u/s.8/15(c) read with Section 8/29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter referred-to as `the Act' and ordered -2- for confiscation of the Commander Jeep being No.RJ-01-P-3154 u/s.60(3) of the Act, the driver of which was accused Gaji Singh. Against this judgment about the confiscation of the vehicle, its owner Kheem Singh, who was examined as PW 8 during trial, has filed this appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that a notice was issued to him on 22.11.01 u/s.63(2) of the Act that as to why, the vehicle should not be confiscated, to which he replied on 6.12.2001 in which he stated that he handed over the vehicle on 27.6.2000 to Gaji Singh for taking a party to Joganiya Mata and he had no knowledge about carrying narcotic drugs in the vehicle. Learned trial Judge ordered for confiscation of the vehicle on the ground stated in para 17 of the judgment that no satisfactory explanation was given with regard to his having no knowledge about transportation of narcotic drugs in the jeep. According to the learned counsel, this finding is against the record, as the appellant was having no knowledge about narcotic drugs in the vehicle. In this regard, he has drawn my attention towards notice Ex.P.24, which was given to him u/s.133 of the MV Act by the investigating Officer on 10.9.2000 in which he admitted the ownership of the vehicle and denied having knowledge about smuggling of the narcotic drugs. -3- 3. Per contra, learned P.P. has supported the judgment of the trial Court. 4. In my view, the finding of the learned trial Judge with regard to confiscation of the vehicle given in para 17 of the judgment is against the record. It is clear from the notice Ex.P.24, which was given by the investigating officer, he has clearly replied that on 27.6.2000, his driver Gaji Singh took the vehicle. When the driver & the vehicle did not return, he enquired about it and came to know that on 27.6.2000, one Amar Singh had taken his vehicle on rent for going to Joganiya Mata but it was seized by the police in connection with carrying poppy husk. This earlier version during investigation given by the owner of the vehicle reveals that he was having no knowledge about the transportation of the narcotic drugs. When the owner had no knowledge, then the confiscation of the vehicle cannot be made in the absence of such knowledge, therefore, the order of confiscation cannot be sustained. 5. Consequently, this appeal is allowed and the order regarding confiscation of the vehicle No.RJ-01-P-3154 dated 20.12.2001 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Bhilwara, while acquitting accused appellants including the -4- driver, is set aside and it is ordered that the said vehicle be returned to its original owner i.e. the appellant Kheem Singh. (DEO NARAYAN THANVI), J. RANKAWAT JK, PS