9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 433X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... offence, it may not assume any significance whether the petitioner has discharged his burden under Section 67(C) of the Act as regards his alleged knowledge of or complicity in the crime. Therefore, Exts.P3 and P5 orders cannot be sustained and are accordingly quashed. The respondent authorities are directed to refund forthwith to the petitioner the amount deposited by him at the time of his securing the interim custody of the vehicle. -Decided in favour of petitioner - WP (C). No. 26099 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 20-1-2016 - Dama Seshadri Naidu, J. For the Petitioner : Sri C. A. Chacko For the Respondent : T. R. Rajesh, Government Pleader JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Ple ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any knowledge concerning the alleged offence committed by the person who hired the petitioner's vehicle. 6. Having placed reliance on Assistant Excise Commissioner v. Paulson 2009(1) KLT 959 and Nazer v. State 1996(1) KLT 321, the learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner be given the benefit of Section 67C (2) of the Act because he has neither knowledge of nor complicity in the alleged crime, concerning which the petitioner's vehicle was confiscated. 7. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, has strenuously opposed the petitioner's claims and contentions. He has submitted that the authorities could clinchingly establish that the inmates of the mini-lorry carrying the contraband and those of the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ext.P3 order reveals that the petitioner, despite his plea that he let out the vehicle on the strength of an agreement, could not produce a copy of the said agreement before the primary authority. The fact, nevertheless, remains that the petitioner did produce before this Court Ext.P2, the alleged agreement, the veracity of which however is assailed by the respondents. 13. Further pertinent is the fact that in Ext.P3 order of the primary authority, it is recorded that the Investigating Officer could gather information that the inmates of the mini-lorry carrying the contraband and those in the petitioner's vehicle had been in constant touch during the course of committing the alleged crime. 14. The singular plea of the learned coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ree of actual, though minimal, control over the operation of the vehicle. In the case in hand, the petitioner is the first accused in the criminal case and was found to be driving the lorry carrying the contraband. He is the registered owner of the motor cycle which was found escorting the lorry. He also does not deny that he was the full owner and in complete control of the user of the motor cycle in question. The rider of the motor cycle escaped into the forest under the cover of darkness. The petitioner does not disclose the identity of the rider, may be because, he is privileged in that regard on account of being the accused in the criminal case. The petitioner does not have a case that the motor cycle that belongs to him was casually b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as held that it is a composite ingredient of transaction: used in carrying the contraband article. 19. In Nazer (supra), this Court, per a learned single Judge, has held that once it could not be established that the owner of the vehicle has any knowledge of or complicity in the crime, it cannot be presumed that he is guilty of the crime or lending a helping hand in precipitating the crime. According to the learned single Judge, the owner of the vehicle, under those circumstances, is entitled to the benefit of Section 67C (2) of the Act. 20. In Paulson (supra), the facts are that the police seized a lorry with Indian Made Foreign Liquor; one person was arrested on the spot. Four of the persons who engaged in loading the liquor, howe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
