A.S. Bains, J. - (1.) OM Parkash, Petitioner, is the owner of truck No HRR(sic) 6464, which was intercepted on the night between 26th and 27th September, 1968. This truck was being driven by Bhagwan Dass and was carrying some bags of rice and barley from Haryana to Rajasthan Bhagwan Dass, Jage Ram and Beni Parshad were tried and convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon. Their appeal against their conviction and sentence was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Gurgaon. Their criminal revision was also dismissed by the High Court and the High Court while disposing of Criminal Revision No. 1142 of 1972, observed in its judgment dated 23rd September, 1974, as under: Last of all, it was submitted by the learned Counsel that the learned trial Magistrate should not have ordered the confiscation of the truck without calling upon its owner to prove that the truck was being used for smuggling(sic) activities without his knowledge or consent. I see considerable force in this submission. The order of the learned Courts below regarding confiscation of the truck is set aside and the learned trial Magistrate is directed to decide this issue after giving the owner of the truck an opportunity of being beard. The Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after serving notice upon the present Petitioner as to why the truck in question be not confiscated to the State, give opportunity to adduce evidence The Petitioner adduced evidence, but the learned Magistrate after appraising the evidence, conussated(sic) the truck in question to the State. On appeal the order the learned chief Judicial Magistrate was upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon vide his judgment dated th(sic) May, 1977. Hence this revision petition by the owner of the truck.
(2.) TWO witnesses, namely, Beni Parshad (O. W. 1) and Bhagwan Dass (O W 2) were produced before the Chief Judical Magistrate(sic) by the present Petitioner. They were employees of the owner (i e the present Petitioner) and were convicted long(sic) with Jage Ram co -accused in the case in watch the truck was confiscated. I have also perused their evidence. There evidence does not inspire confidence. Moreover, the Petitioner did not appear himself in court so as to sty that he had no knowledge about the prying of the truck in question for smuggling of rice and barley(sic) from Haryana to Rajasthan and that he had gone to some other place. In my view, the truck is rightly confiscated to the State by the trial Court. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petioner on Stats of Madhya Pradesh v. Azad Bharat Finance Co. and another A.I.R. 1967 S. C. 276. This was a case under the Opium Act and, on the facts of that case, the Supreme Court made observations to the effect that if the owner of a vehicle has no knowledge what soever(sic) that it was being used for transporting opium, then the vehicle could not be confiscated. But the Supreme Court also observed in para 5 of its judgment that "it is for toe Court to consider in each case whether the vehicle in which the contraband opium is found or is being transported should be confiscated or not having regard to all he circumstances of the case. The facts of the present case are entirely distinguishable from those of the Supreme Court case. The Magistrate gave full opportunity to the owner to prove his lack of knowledge regarding the use of the truck in question for smuggling rice and barley from Haryana to Rajasthan and it was after appraising the evidence produced by the owner that he came to the conclusion that the owner (the present petitions) had the requisite knowledge and since the truck was being used for smuggling purposes, he confiscated the truck to the State in view of the provisions of Section 7(1)(b) of the Essential Commodities Act The trial Court has found as a fact, after appraising the evidence adduced by the Petitioner and giving him full opportunity to do so, that it was within his knowledge and rather with his active connivance that the truck in question was being used far smuggling activities As observed earlier, the Petitioner should have himself come into the witness box as he was the best person to say that he had no knowledge about the use of the truck for any such purpose. He himself did not step into the witness box. It is a matter of common knowledge that the economic offenders like the Petitioner have paralysed onr(sic) economy and a strict view is to be taken in these matters. I do not find that any case is made out for interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 401, Criminal Procedure Code.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY this petition is dismissed.;