2005 (2) TMI 127 - SC - Customs

Prosecution - Sentence - Quantum of punishment - Held that - present appellant has been found guilty on the ground that he was the registered owner of the vehicle PJA 8677. Counsel for the appellant contends that he purchased this lorry in 1982, along with one Kesar Singh but in 1986 he transferred the vehicle with a third party and the Investigating Officer - PW 13, who was examined, deposed that during the course of his investigation he came to know that though the present appellant was the original owner of vehicle bearing registration No. PJA 8677, he had sold the vehicle to one Sucha Singh in 1986, however the registration was not changed in his name. This appellant was convicted solely for the reason that he was the registered owner of the vehicle PJA 8677. There is no evidence to prove that he knowingly allowed any person to use the vehicle for any illegal purpose. There is also no evidence to prove the conspiracy set up by the prosecution. Therefore, it is clear that though the articles were recovered from the lorry, there is no evidence to show that the appellant had any control over the vehicle nor he was in possession of these drugs - Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the conviction under Sections 18, 22, 23, 25, 28, 29, and 30 of the N.D.P.S. Act and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Acquittal of one appellant while the other appellant was found guilty based on ownership of the vehicle.
3. Conviction of the appellant as the driver for illegal transportation of drugs.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
In Criminal Appeal No. 547 of 2004, the appellant, Balwinder Singh, was found guilty solely based on being the registered owner of the vehicle involved in the transportation of drugs. However, the appellant denied any involvement in the crime, and there was no evidence to prove his knowledge or control over the illegal activities. The court noted that the prosecution failed to establish any conspiracy or illegal purpose related to the appellant's ownership of the vehicle. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and Balwinder Singh was acquitted of all charges.

Issue 2:
Regarding Criminal Appeal No. 548 of 2004, the appellant, Tarlochan Singh, who was the driver of the vehicle involved, admitted to knowing about the presence of illegal drugs and their transportation. His statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act incriminated him for offenses under various sections of the NDPS Act. The court found no reason to interfere with his conviction and sentence, reducing the initial 14-year imprisonment to 10 years for each offense, to run concurrently. The fine imposed was maintained, with default sentences also running concurrently.

Conclusion:
The judgment involved the acquittal of one appellant due to lack of evidence linking him to the illegal activities despite being the registered owner of the vehicle. In contrast, the driver of the other vehicle was convicted based on his admission and evidence of involvement in the transportation of illegal drugs. The court upheld the conviction of the driver, albeit with a reduced sentence, emphasizing the seriousness of the offenses committed under the NDPS Act and the IPC.