Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, NAVIN SINHA, JJ.
Mohinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1773 of 2008
Decided On : 25-05-2017
Interpretation of statute – NDPS is a presumptive legislation – Provisions need to be interpreted strictly. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
Both accused were acquitted u/s 15, NDPS Act. But the acquittal of the co-accused was not challenged by State.
The High Court reversed the order of acquittal of the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
State cannot act selectively.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The appellant, Mohinder Singh, was initially acquitted of charges under Section 15 of the NDPS Act by the trial court. The High Court reversed this acquittal, leading to a conviction and a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine.
The State challenged the appellant’s acquittal selectively, without challenging the acquittal of the co-accused, Binder Singh. This selective action by the State was viewed as inappropriate and inconsistent with principles of fair conduct.
The conviction was found to be based on a defective investigation, notably lacking investigation into the origin and destination of the contraband and failing to proceed under the relevant provisions for confiscation of the truck. The only independent witness was disbelieved, further undermining the evidence.
The NDPS Act is a presumptive legislation, which requires strict interpretation of its provisions. In this case, the defective investigation and the selective challenge to the acquittal warranted a reconsideration of the case.
The Court emphasized that the interest of justice necessitated restoring the original order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge, especially given the issues with investigation and the State’s selective approach.
Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted and released, with his bail bonds discharged.
These points reflect the Court’s stance on the importance of fair and non-selective prosecution, thorough investigation, and strict interpretation of the legislation.
ORDER :
Navin Sinha, J.
The acquittal of the appellant from the charge under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “NDPS Act”) by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, has been reversed by the High Court in an appeal preferred by the State, convicting the appellant to rigorous imprisonment of 10 years with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only).
2. We have heard the counsel for the parties. The appellant was tried along with co-accused, Binder Singh. On 19.07.2011 this Court was informed that the co-accused was acquitted by the High Court. Today, learned counsel for the State, after taking instructions, confirms the acquittal of the co-accused, and further informs that on verification from the High Court, it does not appear that any appeal was preferred against his acquittal. Significantly, Binder Singh was the truck driver who originally absconded but faced trial subsequently. The appellant was travelling in the truck. We have serious reservations with regard to the selective act of the State in challenging the appellant’s acquittal alone. If that was not enough, the conviction is based on a defective investigation. No investigation was conducted with regard to the origin and destination of the contraband. The owner of the truck was also not proceeded under Section 25 of the NDPS Act. No proceedings for confiscation of the truck were taken. The only independent witness was disbelieved and was held to be a stock police witness by the trial Court. Despite a finding of defective investigation, the High Court set aside the acquittal holding the trial Court judgment to be perverse.
3. The NDPS Act being a presumptive legislation, the interpretation has to be strict. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, whether it is the acquittal of the co-accused or the defective investigation, the interest of justice calls for restoring the order of the acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge. The order of the High Court in appeal is set aside.
4. The appellant is acquitted and set at liberty unless wanted in any other case. His bail bonds are discharged.
5. The appeal is allowed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
