D.S.Lamba, J. - (1.) This revision is directed against the order, dated Nov. 15, 1974, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the order of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Phagwara, dated April 9, 1974, ordering the confiscation of car bearing No PNA 8930 in a case under section 9(a) and (b) of the Opium Act against Manjit Singh and two other accused.
(2.) The facts of the casein brief are that on 21st May, 1970 Sub-Inspector Pritam Singh Bajwa, Station House Officer, Police Station, Pnagwara, on getting secret information that car bearing No. PNA-8930, carrying a heavy quantity of opium coming from Delhi and leading towards Jullundur, would be arriving organised a raiding party and held a vaka-bundi. After sometime the said car driven by Manjit Singh accused reached the naka zone, in which Bhawani Shankar and Balkrishan accused were sitting. The car was stopped and on search an attach-case, which was lying on the front seat, was found to contain Kilograms of opium. Similarly, another attach-case was found lying in between Bhawani Shankar and Balkrishan on the back side of the car which also contained opium After due investigation, the aforesaid three accused were challaned and sent up for trial before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Phagwara who convicted them under section 9,a) and (b) of the Opium Act and awarded them the sentences of imprisonment and fine. The learned trial Magistrate also observed that the car in question bearing No. PNA-8930, which w is owned and driven b Manjit Singh accused & was used for transportation of contraband opium, was liable to be confiscated to the State under section 11 of the Opium Act and for that purpose no notice was required to be given to the owner before passing the order of confiscation. The learned trial Magistrate ordered accordingly. He also noticed that the fact that the car in question was sold by Manjit Singh accused to a third person, while it was given on super dari by the Court, would not stand in the way of the Court in ordering the confiscation, and that the subsequent transferee of the car can avail of the legal remedy open to him if so advised It appears that the car in question while given supersmart by the Court, was sold by Manjit Singh accused toone Lal Singh, son of Hira Singh of Jandial, District Amit from whom it was further purchased by the petitioner Messrs Mehta and Company, Amritsar, on 10th Jan., 1973 for Rs. 7,650.00, the payment having been made by a cheque.
(3.) Against his conviction and sentence, Manjit Singh accused went up in appeal to the Court of Session, and in revision to this Court, but failed However, against the order if confiscation of the car, the petitioner-company though its partner Ranbir Dev Mehta, filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge and one of the grounds taken was that the petitioner being a bona fide purchaser of the said car, was entitled to the custody of the car. The learned Sessions Judge Kapurthala, finding no hence in the appeal dismissed the same hence this revision.;