As per the information furnished to the police party by two witnesses Ram Sarup (PW-6) and Naresh Kumar (PW-10) the accident occurred on 15.05.2000 at about 9.00 P.M.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/protection-of-public-servants-in-criminal-proceedings/
The Trial Court acquitted Joginder Singh and Gurmail Singh as two of the witnesses who according to prosecution had informed the police party about the names of the driver and cleaner of the truck were declared hostile.
Brief argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that Section 25 of the NDPS Act provides that an owner of the vehicle could be convicted only if he knowingly permits use of his vehicle for commission of any offence.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the Appellant has failed to prove its case that the truck was not being used for any illegal activities.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/disclosure-and-recovery-of-weapon-a-key-factor-in-conviction/
The Appellant who is the registered owner of the truck was not arrested from the spot.
Section 25 of the NDPS Act provides that if an owner of a vehicle knowingly permits it to be used for commission of any offence punishable under the NDPS Act, he shall be punished accordingly.
It was opined that unless the vehicle is used with the knowledge and consent of the owner thereof, which is sine qua non for applicability of Section 25 of the NDPS Act, conviction thereunder cannot be legally sustained. (2) For the purpose of this section, a fact is said to be proved only when the court believes it to exist beyond a reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is established by a preponderance of probability.”
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/legal-analysis-of-judgement-on-discharge-in-a-murder-case/
While dealing with the question of possession in terms of Section 54 of the Act and the presumption raised under Section 35, this Court in Noor Aga v. Section 35 also presupposes that the culpable mental state of an accused has to be proved as a fact beyond reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is established by a preponderance of probabilities. After the accident, the driver and the cleaner came out of the truck cabin and on enquiry by the said witnesses they informed their names as Joginder Singh s/o Jang Singh and Gurmail Singh s/o Nachhattar Singh.
Two prosecution witnesses namely Ram Sarup (PW-6) and Naresh Kumar (PW-10) could be said to be relevant for the reason that in the FIR their names were mentioned as the witnesses who had informed the police party about the names of the driver and cleaner of the truck. He also referred to the statement of Balwan Singh s/o Chatar Singh recorded during investigation, who was not produced in evidence.
Case Title: HARBHAJAN SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA (2023 INSC 424)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001480-001480 / 2011
