Back
2025 Supreme(SC) 1183
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Rajesh Bindal, Augustine George Masih, JJ.
State of Punjab – Appellant
Versus
Gurnam @ Gama Etc. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2836-2837 of 2025
Decided On : 30-07-2025
For the Respondent(s): Mr. D. N. Goburdhan, Sr. Adv. Mr. T. N. Singh, AOR Dr. Sham Chand, Adv.
The Supreme Court clarified that the informant and investigator can be the same, stating acquittals should not be granted solely on technical grounds and all cases must be evaluated individually.
Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Acquittal of respondents by High Court based solely on the principle of law from Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab - Acquittal set aside by Supreme Court emphasizing the necessity of a fair investigation and the credibility of the informant and investigator not being the same person. (Paras 1, 13, 16)
(B) Investigations - The principle from Mohan Lal's case regarding informant and investigator must be applied considering the merits of each case rather than on technical grounds alone. The finding in Mukesh Singh's case was essential to overrule the previous legal stance. (Paras 14, 16)
Facts of the case:
Respondents were convicted for transporting poppy husk; after appeal, acquittal was granted by the High Court based on investigatory principles set forth in earlier judgments, leading to the current Supreme Court proceedings to review these legal standards. (Paras 1, 2, 4)
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court ruled that the principles established in Mohan Lal's case had been diluted and overruled in subsequent significant judgments. The High Court erred solely relying on these technical grounds to acquit respondents. (Paras 16, 17)
Issues: Whether the sole basis of acquittal was proper considering the validity of the investigation and the applicability of established legal principles. (Paras 10, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court identified that the credibility of informants and the nature of investigations should not automatically lead to acquittals when prior judgments have provided guidelines that require case-by-case application. (Paras 14, 16)
Result: Appeals allowed; High Court's acquittal set aside and remitted for merit consideration.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and facts (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. appellant's challenge against high court’s decision based on legal principles governing fair trials. (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments presented by the parties (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. court's analysis of legal principles (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. conclusion and order of the court (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
ORDER :
1. The appellant-State of Punjab is before this Court impugning the judgment of the High Court1[High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh] by which the criminal appeals2[CRA No.12/2011 and CRA No.786/2011] filed by the respondents were allowed3[Dated 11.12.2018] and the judgment4[Dated 11.12.2010] of the Trial Court5[Challan No.322 of 2010] convicting the respondents was set aside. It relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab , (2018) 17 SCC 627 : 2018 INSC 714 wherein it was held that fair investigation, which is the foundation of fair trial, postulates that the informant and investigator must not be the same person.
2. We may analyze the facts in brief. A secret information was received on 20th September, 2009 that poppy husk was being transported in a truck. A truck bearing registration No.PIX 0146 was stopped. Gurnam Singh alias Gama was found to be sitting on the stack of bags in cargo portion of the truck, while Jaswinder Singh was driving the truck. Both are the respondents in these two appeals. On search, 750 kilograms of poppy husk was found along with two motorcycles. First Information Report (FIR) No.221 of 2009 was registered. After trial, the respondents were convicted and vide judgment dated 11th December, 2010, they were directed to undergo RI for a period of 12 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) each.
3. Aggrieved against the judgment of the Trial Court, the respondents preferred Criminal Appeal Nos.D-12-DB of 2011 and D-786-DB-2011 before the High Court. When the appeals were taken up for hearing, relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Mohan Lal’s case (supra) and without discussing the merits of the controversy, the same were allowed. The conviction of the respondents was set aside.
4. The aforesaid common judgment of the High Court is under challenge before this Court by the appellant-State of Punjab.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that after the judgment of this Court in Mohan Lal’s case (supra), in the case of Varinder Kumar v. State of H.P. , (2020) 3 SCC 321 : 2019 INSC 170, a three Judge Bench of this Court clarified the position, as was held in Mohan Lal’s case (supra), that all pending criminal prosecution, trials and appeals prior to the law laid down in Mohan Lal’s case (supra) shall continue to be governed by the individual facts of the case. In the case in hand, the appeals were pending before the High Court prior to the law laid down in Mohan Lal’s case (supra). In fact, the appeals were decided on 11th December, 2018 i.e. after the aforesaid judgment was delivered on 16th August, 2018.
6. She has further referred to a Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Mukesh Singh v. State (Narcotics Branch of Delhi) , (2020) 10 SCC 120 : 2020 INSC 524, delivered on 31st August, 2020, reference was made to a larger Bench regarding correctness of the judgment of this Court in Mohan Lal’s case (supra). The opinion expressed by the Constitution Bench of this Court was that there is no reason to question the credibility of the informant and doubt the entire case of the prosecution solely on the ground that the informant had investigated the case. The submission is that in the case in hand, the acquittal by the High Court was solely on the ground that investigator and the prosecutor was the same person.
7. Referring to the credentials of the respondents, learned counsel for the appellant has produced a list of cases in which the respondent (Gurnam @ Gama) in Criminal Appeal No.2836 of 2025 was involved. In some of them, he was c
