Back
1999 Supreme(P&H) 332
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
R.L. Anand, J.
Nimma Ram - Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 870-SB of 1998.
Decided On : 31 March, 1999
For the Appellant :Mr. R.S. Ghumman, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Vikas Cuccuria, AAG, Punjab.
A joint consent statement under Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not permissible according to law. The offer of Section 50 should be given to each individual accused, and a joint offer is no offer in the eyes of law.
Headnote:
{'KEYWORD': 'NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985', 'SUBJECT': 'Compliance with Section 50 of the Act', 'ACT SECTION LIST': ['SECTION 15', 'SECTION 50']}
Fact of the Case:
Three appellants were found in possession of 280 kgs of poppy husk without a license or permit. They were convicted under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) and sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lac each.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the consent statement under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was a joint statement made by all three appellants, which is not permissible according to law. The court also found that the police had received secret information against the appellants, making compliance with Section 50 mandatory.
Issues: Whether the joint consent statement under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a joint consent statement under Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not permissible according to law. The offer of Section 50 should be given to each individual accused, and a joint offer is no offer in the eyes of law. The court also held that compliance with Section 50 was mandatory in this case because the police had received secret information against the appellants.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment and order of the trial court, and acquitted the appellants of the charges framed against them.
R.L. Anand, J. (Oral) - By this judgment I dispose of two criminal appeals, Nos. 870-SB of 1998 and 1067-SB of 1998, titled Nimma Ram and others v. State of Punjab. I may clarify that both these appeals have arisen from one judgment but have been filed by separate lawyers under some misconception as the appellant engaged two separate lawyers at different points of time in order to file their appeals.
2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 27.8.1998 passed by the court of Special Judge, Ropar, who convicted appellants Nimma Ram, Tilak Ram and Satnam Singh under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to the Act) and sentenced each one of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac. In default of payment of fine, each one of the appellants was directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 22.5.1997 Surjit Singh, SHO, Police Station Kurali received secret information that three persons in the area of village Padiala namely Satnam, Nimma and Tilak Raj were looking for transport to carry eight bags of poppy husk. Inspector Surjit Singh recorded F.I.R. and the police party consisting of Surjit Singh, SHO, ASI Kulbir Singh, ASI Karnail Singh, HC Kuldip Singh and other police officials including independent witness Yash Pal headed for the disclosed place. On reaching T point in the revenue estate of village Padiala on main Kurali-Kharar road, all the accused were seen present along with eight bags. On seeing the police party they tried to slip away. On the basis of suspision, accused along with the gunny bags were apprehended. Inspector Surjit Singh told the accused that he wanted to search the gunny bags and whether the latter wanted to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Police Officer. The accused stated that the wanted to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer of the police department. Consent memo Ex. PD to this regard was prepared which was signed by the accused and attested by ASI Kulbir Singh, ASI Karnail Singh and independent witness Yash Pal. Accordingly, a wireless message was flashed and Ashwani Kapoor, DSP, Kharar was summoned to the spot. On reaching the spot, the DSP disclosed his identity and further offered whether the accused wanted to be searched in his presence. On approval of the accused, the Investigating Officer conducted search of the gunny bags in the presence of DSP and it was found that the gunny bags were containing poppy husk. A sample of 250 grams each was taken out from all the eight bags. On weighment the remaining poppy husk in each bag was found to be 34 kgs. 750 grams. The remaining poppy husk was put back into the same bags and was prepared in the form of parcels. The parcels and samples were sealed with the seal of the Investigating Officer and that of DSP bearing impressions SS and AK respectively. The seal of the Investigating Officer was handed over to ASI Karnail Singh after its use, whereas the DSP kept his seal with him. The entire case property was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PB which was attested by DSP Ashwani Kapoor, ASI Kulbir Singh and independent witness Yash Pal. On supplementary search, currency notes of Rs. 80/-, Rs. 65/- and Rs. 52/- were recovered from accused Satnam Singh, Nimma Ram and Tilak Raj respectively, which were taken into possession vide memos Ex. PE, PF and PG. Rough site plan of the place of recovery Ex. PH was prepared and statements of the witnesses were recorded. On reaching police station, the case property was deposited with the MHC Bawa Singh. Samples and sample seals were also deposited with him. On 23.5.1997, the case property along with the accused was produced before Illaqa Magistrate by ASI Kulbir Singh and on return to the police station, the same was deposited with the MHC. The samples of the poppy husk were sent to the of
