2005 INSC 0204
                                    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                              Balwinder Singh

                                                      Vs.

                        Assistant Commissioner Customs and Central Excise

                                           Crl.A.No.547 of 2004

                             (K. G. Balakrishnan and B. N. Srikrishna JJ.)

                                                 22.02.2005

                                                   ORDER

1. These two appellants, along with two others, were found guilty by the District Judge,
Ludhiana for the offences punishable 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. Two of them i.e. Tarlochan Singh,
S/o Chct Singh and Devinder Singh were acquitted by the High Court and the present
appellants i.e. Balwinder Singh and Tarlochan Singh S/o Darshan Singh were found guilty. It
is against this that the appellants have come up before this Court by way of these appeals, i.e.
Criminal Appeal No. 547 of 2004 was preferred by Balwinder Singh and Criminal Appeal
No. 548 of 2004 was preferred by Tarlochan Singh.

Criminal Appeal No. 547 of 2004:

2. The facts of this case are that on 6-1-1988 two trucks bearing Registration No. PJA 8677
and DIL 3372 were intercepted by the Central Excise and Customs Department, Ludhiana
Division. The officers of the Customs Department conducted search of the vehicle in the
presence of witnesses and it was found that the truck bearing registration No. PJA 8677 was
having a secret compartment and found that 175 Kgs. of heroine and 39 Kgs. of Opium of
foreign origin were concealed in this chamber. The sample was taken and it was found that
these articles were Opium and Heroine as contended by the prosecution. During the course of
investigation, the statement of the appellant was taken under Section 108 of the Customs Act
and 15 witnesses have been examined. The appellant herein completely denied his
culpability in the crime.

3. The 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

1  SpotLaw
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. In the result, we allow the appeal and acquit the appellant
Balwinder Singh of all charges framed against him.

Criminal Appeal No. 548 of 2004:

4. In this case, the appellant Tralochan Singh was the driver of the vehicle DIL 3372. He was
also in custofy of vechilc PJA 8677. His statement was recorded under Section 108 of the
Customs Act. From his possession the articles of Opium and Heroine were recovered and in
his statement he admitted that he knew about the presence of these drugs in the vehicle and
about the transport of the drugs illegally from Ludhiana to Bombay. It is evident from the
statement made by him that he committed the offences punishable under Sections 18, 21, 22,
23, 25, 29 and 30 of the NDPS Act. # We find no reason to interfere with the conviction and
sentence entered against the appellant Tralochan Singh and the criminal appeal stands
dismissed. We are told that the appellant was convicted of this offence for the first time. The
sentence imposed on him was imprisonment for a period of 14 years. Having regard to the
facts and circumstances of this case, we reduce the sentence from 14 years to 10 years each
for the offences under the NDPS Act and for the offence under Section 120B of the IPC. The
sentences shall run concurrently. The direction to pay fine is maintained, but the default
sentences shall also run concurrently.

2  SpotLaw