CRIMINAL REVISION NO.557 OF 2004 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 20, 2008 Charanjit Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Vivek Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, AAG, Punjab, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has filed this revision petition, impugning the order dated 10.11.2003 passed by Special Judge, Moga, whereby the petitioner has been summoned as an additional accused in exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. On 18.12.2002, Major Singh, Junior Assistant of D.T.O. Office, Moga, was examined in the Court as a witness. He proved that truck bearing registration No.PB-20A-9627 was owned by Charanjit Singh. Evidence of Gurdip Singh, SI, was also available on CRIMINAL REVISION NO.557 OF 2004 :{ 2 }: record, who had deposed that 30 bags of poppy straw, each containing 40 Kgs., were recovered from the said truck. In this background, the Court viewed that Charanjit Singh is also liable for an offence under Section 25 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, “the Act”). His summoning was considered essential. Application in this regard was moved, which was allowed. Aggrieved against the same, the present revision petition has been filed. This is a case of recovery of poppy straw on 18.6.2001 by Jasvir Singh, SHO, Police Station Badhni Kalan, District Moga. Truck No.PB-20A-9627 was intercepted and poppy straw was recovered therefrom. The Driver disclosed his name as Gurmukh Singh @ Bittu and one person sitting in the truck as a Conductor disclosed his name as Santokh Singh son of Gopal Singh. They were accordingly prosecuted for the offence under the Act in regard to recovery of 30 bags containing 40 Kgs. poppy straw in each bag. The petitioner, as already noticed, has been summoned, when it was found that he is actually owner of the truck. The submission of counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner, Charanjit Singh, had sold this truck in favour of Balvir Singh son of Gopal Singh and an affidavit in this regard was available on record. This affidavit was disbelieved by the Court by observing that it is a matter of common knowledge that whenever a vehicle transporting contraband under NDPS Act is involved in a criminal case, its owner is generally acting to fabricate such documents which could show ownership of truck vesting in one of CRIMINAL REVISION NO.557 OF 2004 :{ 3 }: accused persons or some other persons so that truck owner being main man behind the crime could go scot free. The truck has also not been transferred in record in the name of Balvir Singh son of Gopal Singh, resident of Moga. The petitioner was, as such, summoned to face prosecution as an additional accused for an offence under Section 25 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner would draw my attention to an application, Annexure P-1, moved by Balvir Singh son of Gopal Singh for release of truck on supardari. In the said application, said Balvir Singh has described himself as an owner of the truck. He is not the accused person for the offence under the Act. On the basis of this application, the truck was released to said Balvir Singh on superdari and Zimni order in this regard has been reproduced, which reads as under:- “File taken up today again on account of the application moved on behalf of applicant Balbir Singh, notice of which has been given to the learned Addl.P.P. for the State who has not wished to file any reply nor has opposed the application. From the perusal of the contents of the application, it is revealed that the supardari of the truck bearing No.PB-20A-9627 has been purchased by Balbir Singh alleging himself to have become owner of the vehicle having been purchased from Charanjit Singh who has furnished affidavit dated 2.2.2001. Earlier the truck was ordered to be released to the registered owner but CRIMINAL REVISION NO.557 OF 2004 :{ 4 }: now after considering the report of the SHO, P.S.Badhni Kalan, who has got no objection if the truck in question is given on Supardari to applicant Balbir Singh. Since applicant Balbir Singh is ready to give undertaking to produce the truck on each and every date of hearing during the course of trial and he will abide by any other condition whatever the court may deem it proper. Therefore, the application deserves to be allowed and the truck in question is ordered to be released to applicant Balbir Singh on the previous terms and conditions imposed in the order dated 25th July, 2001. The application stands disposed of accordingly.” Counsel would also refer to the fact that after the date of purchase, Balvir Singh was paying the instalment to Deep Finvest Limited, the Financier of the Truck. This Court in its order dated 15.3.2004 had noticed that consideration amount was paid by Balvir Singh through a loan obtained from the said Deep Finvest Limited, Moga. It is also noticed in the said order that Balvir Singh started repaying the loan through instalments and on 6.6.2001 paid the first instalment to the finance company. The occurrence took place on 18.6.2001 and truck was impounded later and released on superdari to said Balvir Singh. The relevant part of the order dated 15.3.2004 is reproduced below:- “Counsel contends that the truck in question, owned by the petitioner, was sold to Balvir Singh. The consideration amount was paid through a loan obtained by Balvir Singh CRIMINAL REVISION NO.557 OF 2004 :{ 5 }: from Deep Finvest Limited, Moga. Balvir Singh had started repaying the loan through instalments and on June 6, 2001 paid the first instalment to the finance company. The occurrence took place on June 18, 2001. The truck was impounded and later released on supardari to Balvir Singh.” It is, thus, reasonable to infer that the petitioner though earlier was owner of this truck but had sold the same prior to the date of occurrence. There is evidence available on record to the effect that this truck is now owned by Balvir Singh, who himself has moved an application for release of the same on supardari. In this view of the matter, it can be said that evidence that is available on record would not be such so as to raise a reasonable prospect of conviction of the petitioner for an offence under Section 25 of the Act. Even otherwise, it may be worth notice that main accused in this case have already been acquitted by the Special Judge, Moga, vide his order dated 16.4.2007. Counsel for the petitioner says that as per his instructions, no appeal or revision has been filed against the said order. Taking the totality of facts and circumstances in view, it can be said that the evidence available against the petitioner would not be enough for prospect of conviction of the petitioner, which could have prompted the Court to summon the petitioner as an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face prosecution under Section 25 of the Act. That is the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Machael Machando Vs. C.B.I., 2 000 CRIMINAL REVISION NO.557 OF 2004 :{ 6 }: Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 609. The evidence available would not satisfy the test as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The impugned order, thus, can not be sustained. The petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set-aside. October 20,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE