1 S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.612/2006 (Shivdan Vs. State) Date of order : 25.9.2007 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. M.L. Bishnoi, for the petitioner. Mr. Vishnu Kachchwaha, PP. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor. By way of filing present revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the order impugned dated 14.6.2006 passed by Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jodhpur whereby charge was framed by trial Court against the petitioner under Section 8/25 NDPS Act. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that owner of the vehicle can be convicted under Section 8/25 of NDPS Act, if prosecution proves its case or there is any evidence to the effect that being owner or occupier or having control or use of any conveyance knowingly he permits other person to use the vehicle for commission of offence, then, it is permissible under this Section. Therefore, the charge, which is framed against the petitioner is totally erroneous because he was having no knowledge that his vehicle being No. RJ 13-1-G-1415 was used for commission of offence, therefore, the charge framed 2 against the petitioner may be quashed. On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that admittedly the petitioner is owner of vehicle in question in which huge quantity of poppy-husk was recovered and the said vehicle was being driver by one Teja Ram - driver of the petitioner, therefore, it is not disputed by the petitioner that he is not owner of the vehicle in question. The contention of the petitioner with regard to knowledge is subject matter of trial and if ultimately prosecution fails to prove its case, then, he can be acquitted but for the purpose of charge, it is obvious from the facts that huge quantity of poppy husk was recovered from the vehicle and the petitioner is owner of said vehicle. Thus, it is prayed that the revision petition deserves to be dismissed. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the impugned order as well as record of the case. Admittedly, in the present case, huge quantity of poppy-husk was recovered from mini truck No. RJ 13-1-G-1415, which belongs to the petitioner and the said vehicle was being driven by one Teja Ram - driver of the petitioner. Therefore, at this stage, in my opinion, the learned trial Court has rightly 3 framed charge against the petitioner for offence under Section 8/25 NDPS Act. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, no case for interference with the order impunged dated 14.6.2006 is made out. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J . arun