State Of Rajasthan vs Sukhvinder Singh
2021 Latest Caselaw 16543 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Crml Leave To Appeal No. 172/2021

State of Rajasthan

----Appellant Versus Sukhvinder Singh S/o Jasveer Singh, R/o Rudiwala, Police Station Tarantaaran, District Tarantaaran. (Punjab)

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Javed Gaury Public Prosecutor for the State

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS

Order

29/10/2021

Instant leave to appeal has been preferred on behalf of

the State against the judgment dated 5.4.2021 passed by the

Special Judge, NDPS Cases (Sessions Judge) Churu, whereby

respondent Sukhvinder Singh was acquitted of charges under

Sections 25 and 29 of NDPS Act.

Heard learned Public Prosecutor for the State and

perused the material available on record.

By the impugned judgment, learned Special Judge,

NDPS Cases, Churu while convicting accused Jagir Singh @

Gurveer Singh under Section 8/15 NDPS Act acquitted the

respondent Sukhvinder Singh from the charges of Sections 25 and

29 NDPS Act. As per the impugned judgment, there was no

evidence on record except that the respondent Sukhvinder Singh

is the registered owner of Truck bearing Registration No. PB-46-M-

(2 of 3) [CRLLA-172/2021]

9709, from which contraband was recovered, there was no other

evidence on record to connect him with the offence.

As per findings given in the impugned judgment, the

investigating officer failed to produce any evidence to prove that

Sukhvinder Singh had any conspiracy with the accused Jagir Singh

@ Gurveer Singh. No call details have been obtained regarding

calls between Jagir Singh @ Gurveer Singh and Sukhvinder Singh.

As per finding of judgment, Sukhvinder Singh cannot be

connected only on the ground that he is the registered owner of

the Truck.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is

in full agreement with the findings recorded by learned Trial Court

while acquitting the respondent Sukhvinder Singh. As per

provisions of Section 25 of NDPS Act, whoever, being the owner or

occupier or having the control or use of any house, room,

enclosure, space, place, animal or conveyance, knowingly permits

it to be used for the commission by any other person of an offence

punishable under any provision of this Act, shall be punishable

with the punishment provided for that offence.

In the present case, it is true that the respondent

Sukhvinder Singh is registered owner of the vehicle in dispute,

however, the investigating officer did not try to collect any

evidence against him. Even, notice under Section 133 of Motor

Vehicles Act, was not issued to him, whereas, investigating officer

could obtain the information regarding circumstances under which

the Truck bearing Registration No. PB-46-M-9709 came in the

possession of Jagir Singh @ Gurveer Singh. There is no evidence

on record to suggest that there was any conspiracy between Jagir

(3 of 3) [CRLLA-172/2021]

Singh @ Gurveer Singh and respondent Sukhvinder Singh

regarding contraband.

Learned trial court in the impugned judgment referred

the judgment of this Court in the matter of Puran Ram vs. State

of Rajasthan : 2019 (3) CJ (Cri.) (Rajasthan) 1662, wherein

this Court has held as under:-

"From a bare reading of the language of the statutory provision, it is clear that for proving this charge, the prosecution would have to lead evidence to satisfy the court that the owner or the person in control of the offending vehicle used or knowingly permitted the offending vehicle to be used by any other person for commission of an offence punishable under the provisions of the Act. Mere allegation that the contraband was recovered from inside the vehicle would not absolve the prosecution of its burden in this regard. The question of raising presumption under Section 35 of the NDPS Act would only arise once the prosecution discharges the initial burden cast upon it by the penal provision, i.e. Section 25 of the NDPS Act."

In view of above background, there is no ground to

grant leave to appeal to the appellant - State. Accordingly, the

instant leave to appeal is dismissed.

(RAMESHWAR VYAS),J

3-Mak/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)