The single judge bench of Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill of the Punjab and Haryana High court in the case of Gurmeet Singh Vs State of Punjab set aside the judgment of the trial court and ordered the truck to be released on superdari to the petitioner (wife of the proclaimed offender) subject to the imposition of any such conditions, as may be deemed appropriate by the trial Court during the continuance of proceedings under Sections 60(3) and 63 of the Act, subject to her furnishing requisite undertakings/sureties.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the FIR was registered against the three accused under section 15 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. While nakabandi the truck was signaled to stop. As the truck stopped, one person jumped out of the same from the passenger side and ran away. After that, he has declared the proclaimed offender. Thereafter, the application was moved by the petitioner for the release of the truck on superdari but the same was declined by the trial court.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the since the co-accused have been acquitted by this Court, it cannot be said that the vehicle in question was ever used to commit any crime, and thus the vehicle in question should have been released to the petitioner, especially since the third co-accused has already expired and there is no chance of his being tried. It has been argued that, in these circumstances, the proceedings initiated by the trial Court under Sections 60(3) and 63 of the Act, as evidenced by the impugned order, deserve to be dismissed and cannot continue in the absence of any finding as to the use of a vehicle in the commission of any offense under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
The learned counsel appearing on the behalf of the state contended that the trial court has vehemently contended that the trial court while holding the accused directed that the vehicle be confiscated. It was further contended that the accused has set aside the conviction of the accused, but it is solely on the account that while Angrez Singh was found to be the owner of the truck in question who had run away from the spot, there was no evidence to establish the conscious possession of the other two accused as regards the contraband being carried in the truck in question. It was also argued that there has been no finding that no contraband was being carried in the truck in question and that as such, in terms of Section 63 of the Act, even if the accused had been acquitted, it is for the Court to decide as to whether any article or thing seized under the Act is liable to be confiscated under Sections 60, 61 or 62 of the Act and thus, the acquittal of the accused is of no consequence qua the confiscation of the truck in question.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon’ble court held that the trial Court, in terms of Section 63 of the Act would be fully competent to inquire into the matter as to whether the truck in question is liable to be seized or not, but the observation of the Court to the effect that the vehicle is liable to the seized as Angrez Singh had been declared a proclaimed offender and that property of the proclaimed offender cannot be released is rather misconceived in as much as the truck in question had not been seized with the aid of Section 83 Cr.P.C. but had been seized, being a case property. At last, the hon’ble court ordered that the truck be released on superdari to the petitioner Gurmeet Kaur subject to the imposition of any such conditions, as may be deemed appropriate by the trial Court during the continuance of proceedings under Sections 60(3) and 63 of the Act, subject to her furnishing requisite undertakings/sureties.
CASE NAME- Gurmeet Singh Vs State of Punjab
CITATION- CRM-M-21732-2014 (O&M)
DATED-08.09.22
CORUM- Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
