9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (4) TMI 99X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l is whether on account of the hire-purchase agreement, the appellant can be held to be the owner within the ambit of sub-section (3) of Section 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "the NDPS Act"). 2. Under sub-section (3) of Section 60 of the NDPS Act, any animal or conveyance used in carrying any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance is liable to confisca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , reliance has been placed on a decision of a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Punjan Kashmir Finance (P) Ltd. v. State. The expression "owner" has not been defined in the NDPS Act. There is also no dispute that under the hire-purchase agreement the title to the vehicle is retained with the appellant until and unless the entire hire-purchase money is paid back. But i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. In view of the aforesaid interpretation of the expression "owner" in sub-section (3) of Section 60 of the NDPS Act, the appellant cannot be permitted to urge that the order for confiscation is bad as he had no knowledge of the fact that the vehicle was used for carrying any narcotic substances. The High Court, therefore, was justified in rejecting the contention of the appellant that the truc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
