Crl.Rev.No.2378 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Rev.No.2378 of 2008 Date of Decision: 18.4.2009 Hardeep Singh .....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ....Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioner challenges an order dated 18.9.2008, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, exercising the powers of the Special Judge, Moga, under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') directing the confiscation of the petitioner's truck. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's truck has been confiscated without grant of an adequate opportunity to establish, his defence namely that the truck was misused for transporting poppy husk without his knowledge or connivance. It is further submitted that though the trial court recorded an interim order that the petitioner does not wish to lead any evidence, the statement was a bonafide error on the part of the petitioner's counsel. It is prayed that in case, the petitioner is granted an opportunity, he has sufficient material to establish that his truck was misused by the accused without his knowledge or connivance. Crl.Rev.No.2378 of 2008 2 Counsel for the State of Punjab, on the other hand, submits that though he has no objection to the grant of an opportunity to establish his defence in terms of Section 60 and 63 of the Act, but in view of the statement made by the petitioner's counsel, the present petition should be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The Act provides that where a conveyance is used for carrying any narcotics, drugs or Psychotropic substance, it shall be liable to confiscation, unless the owner of the conveyance proves that it was so used without his knowledge or connivance and that he had taken all reasonable precautions against its misuse. A perusal of the impugned order dated 5.7.2008, discloses that the petitioner's counsel made a statement that the petitioner did not wish to lead any evidence in defence. As a result, the trial court cannot be faulted in proceeding to pass an order confiscating the truck. However, it would be necessary to mention that the petitioner is not cited as accused in the pending trial. It prima facie appears that the petitioner's driver and the driver's assistant, misused his truck. The statement, by the petitioner's counsel appears to have been made without considering the consequences thereof. It would, therefore, be appropriate, in the interest of justice, that an opportunity is granted to the petitioner, to establish his defence in terms of Section 60 and 63 of the Act. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed, the order dated 18.9.2008 is set aside. The Special Judge, Moga, is directed to grant the petitioner two effective opportunities to lead evidence in defence before proceeding to decide the notice of confiscation afresh, in accordance with Crl.Rev.No.2378 of 2008 3 law. Parties are directed to appear before the Special Judge, Moga, on 18.5.2009 for further proceedings. 18.4.2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE