No Proof of Lack of Knowledge: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Confiscation of Motorcycle in NDPS Case, Cuts Sentences

Police say that on 21.02.2014, acting on secret information, they stopped three men on a motorcycle at Ambikapur and recovered 50.560 g of brown sugar from the backpack of one, who died during investigation; the FSL found diacetylmorphine (paras 4, 6). On 21.08.2015 the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Ambikapur convicted Ganesh Prajapati and Shailendra Singh under Section 21(b) and sentenced each to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and a Rs.50,000 fine (para 2). By an order of 19.10.2015 the trial court confiscated the motorcycle, registered to Sukhan Singh (paras 33, 37). The convicts challenged only the sentence; the owner said his grandson took the vehicle without his knowledge and he had no sufficient hearing (paras 11, 34).

Ravindra Kumar Agrawal J. re-examined the evidence although the conviction was not challenged (para 14). Three accused were arrested on the same motorcycle, brown sugar was seized from one, the false-implication defence was an afterthought, and the seizure was proved after compliance with the Act's mandatory provisions, so the conviction showed no perversity (paras 27-28). Considering that 50.560 g of diacetylmorphine is an intermediate quantity, between the 5 g small and 250 g commercial limits, for which Section 21(b) prescribes no minimum sentence, and that Ganesh Prajapati had undergone more than 5 years and 6 months and Shailendra Singh more than 5 years, the Court reduced the sentences to the period undergone and the fines to Rs.10,000 (paras 29-31). The motorcycle, its involvement found and the convictions upheld, was liable to confiscation under Section 60(3) (para 33). The trial court had found that the owner failed to produce any evidence that it was used without his knowledge and that nothing showed he took due care before handing it to his grandson (para 37). Given the convictions, the vehicle's involvement and the owner's lack of evidence, the Court found no perversity or illegality warranting interference (para 38).