Acquittal for vehicle owner, driver convicted for drug transportation. Sentenced to 10 years concurrently.

The appellant, Balwinder Singh, was acquitted of all charges in Criminal Appeal No. 547 of 2004 due to lack of evidence linking him to the illegal activities despite being the registered owner of the vehicle. In Criminal Appeal No. 548 of 2004, the appellant, Tarlochan Singh, the driver of the vehicle, was convicted based on his admission and evidence of involvement in the transportation of illegal drugs. His sentence was reduced to 10 years for each offense, to run concurrently, with the fine imposed maintained.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal against the conviction 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.
2. Acquittal of one appellant while the other appellant was found guilty based on ownership of the vehicle.
3. Conviction of the appellant as the driver for illegal transportation of drugs.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
In Criminal Appeal No. 547 of 2004, the appellant, Balwinder Singh, was found guilty solely based on being the registered owner of the vehicle involved in the transportation of drugs. However, the appellant denied any involvement in the crime, and there was no evidence to prove his knowledge or control over the illegal activities. The court noted that the prosecution failed to establish any conspiracy or illegal purpose related to the appellant's ownership of the vehicle. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and Balwinder Singh was acquitted of all charges.

Issue 2:
Regarding Criminal Appeal No. 548 of 2004, the appellant, Tarlochan Singh, who was the driver of the vehicle involved, admitted to knowing about the presence of illegal drugs and their transportation. His statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act incriminated him for offenses under various sections of the NDPS Act. The court found no reason to interfere with his conviction and sentence, reducing the initial 14-year imprisonment to 10 years for each offense, to run concurrently. The fine imposed was maintained, with default sentences also running concurrently.

Conclusion:
The judgment involved the acquittal of one appellant due to lack of evidence linking him to the illegal activities despite being the registered owner of the vehicle. In contrast, the driver of the other vehicle was convicted based on his admission and evidence of involvement in the transportation of illegal drugs. The court upheld the conviction of the driver, albeit with a reduced sentence, emphasizing the seriousness of the offenses committed under the NDPS Act and the IPC.

---