State of Haryana v. Ram Lal (SC)
BS632615
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before:- Dr. B.S. Chauhan and A.K. Sikri, JJ.
Criminal Appeal No. 1914 of 2009. D/d.
28.5.2014.
State of Haryana - Appellant
Versus
Ram Lal - Respondent
For the Appellant :- Nupur Choudhary and Naresh Bakshi, Advocates.
@HN = Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 8 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 319 Recovery - Owner of the car can not be summoned - Merely because person was the owner of the vehicle, cannot be a good ground to summon being an accused, as it cannot be said that he was in the possession of the contraband in question - More so, when he was not in the car at that time when the said car was searched and the material found.
[Para 1]
ORDER
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. - One Maruti Essteem car bearing registration No. DL 2C B 4269 was intersected and it was found that it was carrying 120 kgs. of poppy husk. As per the prosecution case, the vehicle was being driven by Roshan Lal and another person namely, Sajjan was sitting by his side. Both these persons were arrested and the case was registered under the provisions of Narcotics Drugs & Psychotrophic Substances Act (for short `NDPS Act') against the aforesaid two accused persons. During the trial, the trial Court passed orders summoning the respondent Ram Lal in exercise of its power under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is relevant to mention that as per the prosecution case, he was earlier named as a witness, P.W.1, being the registered owner of the car. The respondent challenged that order by filing Criminal Revision before the High Court. The High Court has allowed the revision petition primarily on the ground that it was the prosecution's own case, all through, that Ram Lal had not knowingly permitted the use of the vehicle for carrying contraband and there being no material available on record in this regard. Once that is the case of the prosecution itself, merely because Ram Lal was the owner of the said vehicle, cannot be a good ground to summon being an accused, as it cannot be said that he was in the possession of the contraband in question. More so, when he was not in the car at that time when the said car was searched and the material found. We, thus, do not find any merit in this appeal against the impugned order of the High Court which has set aside the summoning order of the trial court. The appeal is thus dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.