Case Title:
Lorik Ram Vs. State of Assam
Date of Order:
May 27, 2022
Bench:
Justice Ajit Borthakur
Parties:
Petitioner - Lorik Ram
Respondent - State of Assam
Subject
A bail application was filed by the petitioner who was accused of carrying the codeine phosphate-based cough syrup bottles, which were claimed to be greater than the allowed commercial quantity, contending that the diver did not have the knowledge of what was being transported by him.
Important provisions
Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Sections 22(C), 25, 29, 37 (1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Overview
The petitioner worked as a truck driver for VRS Logistics which is currently the largest fleet owner of commercial vehicles in India. He was accused of charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for carrying the codeine phosphate-based cough syrup. The petitioner was required to transport the goods from the transshipment point of the company located at Gorchuk in Guwahati to the other at Agartala. The goods loaded in the said truck consisted of 10 cartons of mouth wash which was booked by a consignor at Varanasi, in favor of Bikash Dutta at Agartala. During a special Naka by police, 13 cartons of 4000 Escuf Syrup bottles from one of the vehicles and 10 cartons of Phensedyl containing 3000 bottles of Phensedyl Cough Syrup from the other truck were recovered and seized. The accused driving the vehicle containing 10 cartons was therefore accused under the provisions of the NDPS Act, for which the bail application was filed.
Issues Raised
Whether or not a courier service driver can be held liable under NDPS Act if he is unaware of what is being transported through his vehicle?
Arguments advanced by the Petitioner
The counsel on behalf of the petitioner praying for his bail under Section 439 of CrPC, contended that since the original consignment was to transport 10 cartons of mouth wash from one transshipment point to the other, and the accused drove it from Guwahati to Agartala, unaware of the fact that the cartons bore 3000 bottles of codeine phosphate-based Escuf Cough Syrup along with other shipment items. Also, the seized cough syrup bottles contained only 600 gm of codeine phosphate which was less than the allowed commercial quantity, i.e. 1000 gm, as per NDPS; therefore the rigors of Section 37 (1) are not attracted in this case. Section 37 bars the Court from granting bail to an accused under the NDPS Act, unless the Court is convinced that the accused might not be guilty and will not commit any other offense if released on bail.
Arguments advanced by the Respondent
To the contentions made by the petitioner, the counsel on behalf of the respondent submitted that a total of 13 cartons bearing 4000 bottles of Escuf Syrup was seized from one of the vehicles which was driven by a driver named Shrimanta Baruah, and 10 cartons containing 3000 bottles of Phensedyl Cough Syrup were recovered from the vehicle driven by the present petitioner. Therefore, the total quantity of codeine phosphate-based cough syrup amounted to commercial quantity under the N.D.P.S. Act. Therefore, the respondent prayed before the Hon’ble Court to not release the accused on bail until the investigation gets completed.
Judgment Analysis
The Hon’ble Court observed that the accused worked as a truck driver for VRL Logistics and it was his duty to transport the goods loaded by the company to the consignee. Further, the cartons that were loaded, bore the seal of VRL Logistics therefore, the Hon’ble Court noted that the narcotic suppliers or peddlers misused the vehicles of VRL Logistics in furtherance of their malicious intent, and the accused driver just transported those cartons. Therefore the Hon’ble High Court granted bail to the accused stating that the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted to this case.
Conclusion
The decision of the Gauhati High Court in granting bail to the accused is justified as the knowledge or intention plays a vital role in deciding the liability of an offender. Here in this case, since the facts did not establish that the accused was aware of what he was transporting, the accused was granted bail presuming his innocence. The final decision is however subject to the investigation report of the Investigating Officer.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
