SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(UK) 42

2010 (1) N.C.C. 651
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu
Criminal Appeal No. 436 of 2009
AJMER SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA – Respondent
Decided on : 15.02.2010

For the Appellant :Mr.R.S. Dhull, Mr. Sanjay Jha and Mr. Dharam Bir Raj Vohra, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. Manjit Singh, AAG and Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, Advocates

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Sec. 50 — Principles of — Applicability — Compliance or non-compliance of Sec. 50 — Is relevant only where search of a person is involved — The provisions of Sec. 50 comes into play only in the case of personal search of the accused and not of some baggage like a bag, article or container, etc. which (the accused) may be carrying — Object, purpose and Scope of Sec. 50 — Consideration of — (I) When search and seizure is to be conducted under the provision of the Act, it is imperative for him to inform the person concerned of his right of being taken to the nearest gazetted officer or the nearest Magistrate for making serach — (II) Failure to inform the accused of such right would cause prejudice to an accused — (III) That a search made by an empowered officer, on prior information without informing the accused of such a right may not vitiate trial, but would render the recovery of the illicit article suspect and vitiate the conviction and sentence of an accused, where the conviction is solely based on the possession of the illicit article, recovered from his person, during such search — (IV) The investigation agency must follow the procedure as envisaged by the statute scrupulously and failure to do so would lead to unfair trial contrary to the concept of justice — (V) That the question as to whether the safeguards provided in Section 50 of the Act have been duly observed would have to be determined by the court on the basis of the evidence at the trial and without giving an opportunity to the prosecution to establish the compliance of Section 50 of the Act would not be permissible as it would cut short a criminal trial — (VI) That the non compliance of the procedure i.e. informing the accused of the right under sub-Section (1) of Section 50 may render the recovery of contraband suspect and conviction and sentence of an accused bad and unsustainable in law — (VII) The illicit article seized from the person of an accused during search conducted without complying the procedure under Section 50, cannot be relied upon as evidence for proving the unlawful possession of the contraband — Referred judgments (1994) 6 SCC 569, (1974) 1 SCC 345 relied. (Paras 12 to 14)

       (B) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Sec. 50 — Evidence of official witnesses in respect of — Reliability — It is expected that there should be independent evidence to support case of prosecution — But, it is not an inviolable rule — The obligation to take public witnesses is not absolute. (Para 16)

       (C) Parity Principle — An aspect of equal justice — When two or more co-offenders are to be sentenced, any significant disparity in their sentences should be capable of a rational explanation — Applying the principle of parity both the accused must be involved in same crime and must be convicted in single trial — Consequently, a co-accused is one who is awarded punishment along with the other accused in the same proceedings. (Paras 18 to 23)

       ¼v½ Lokid vkS"kf/k ,oa euksRrstd inkFkZ vf/kfu;e] 1985] /kkjk 50 ds ykxw fd;s tkus dk fl)kUr & /kkjk 50 dk ifjikyu vFkok vifjikyu & /kkjk 50 dk izkfo/kku dsoy ml le; ykxw gksrk gS tc vfHk;qDr dh tkekryk'kh yh tk, uk fd fdlh lkeku] tSls FkSyk] oLrq] cjru vkfn dh] ftls og ys tk jgk gS & /kkjk 50 dk mn~ns'; vkSj foLrkj & fopkjk/khu Fkk & fu.kZ; fn;k x;k (I) tc bl vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr ryk'kh vkSj tCrh dh dk;Zokgh dh tk, rks mlds fy, ;g vko';d gS fd og viuh ilUn ds lEcfU/kr O;fDr dks lwpuk ns vkSj mls fudVre jktif=r vfèkdkjh vFkok fudVre n.Mkf/kdkjh ds lEeq[k ryk'kh ds okLrs ys tk, (II) vfHk;qDr dks mlds bl vf/kdkj dks crkus esa vlQy jgus dk vFkZ vfHk;qDr ds izfr iwokZxzg mRié gksuk gS & (iii) fdlh vf/kdr vf/kdkjh }kjk vfHk;qDr dks mlds vfèkdkj dh lwpuk fn;s cxSj ryk'kh dk fy;k tkuk dsl ds fopkj.k dks gh fu"Qy ugha djsxk cfYd fuf"k) oLrqvksa dh cjkenxh dks lafnX/k cuk nsxk vkSj nks"kflf) vkSj ltk dks Hkh izHkkfor djsxk tcfd nks"kflf) dsoy ek= fuf"k) oLrqvksa dh cjkenxh vkSj muds j[kus ij tks fd mlls ryk'kh esa feyh Fkh ij vk/kkfjr gS (IV) foospuk vf/kdkjh dks dkuwu esa fufgr izfd;k dks Bhd ls viukuk visf{kr gS vkSj mlesa vlQy jgus dk rkRi;Z U;k; dh Hkkouk ds foijhr fu"i{k fopkj.k ugha ekuk tk,xk & (V) ;g fd /kkjk 50 esa fufgr lqj{kkRed mik; dks Bhd ls iz;ksx esa yk;s tkus ds iz'u dks fopkj.k ds le; U;k;ky; }kjk fjdkMZ esa miyC/k lk{; ds vk/kkj ij gy djuk gksrk gS ftl esa vfHk;kstu dks dksbZ volj iznku fd;s fcuk fd og vc /kkjk 50 dk ifjikyu dj ys] dkuwu xyr gksxk tks fd nkf.Md fopkj.k dks vklku rjhds ls iwjk djuk gksxk & (VI) izfd;k dk vuqikyu u fd;k tkuk fd vfHk;qDr dks mldk vf/kdkj mi /kkjk ¼1½ ds rgr u crk;k tkuk fuf"k) oLrqvksa dh cjkenxh dks lafnX/k cuk ldrk gS vkSj vfHk;qDr ds nks"kflf) vkSj ltk dks xyr vkSj dk;e u jgus ;ksX; djkj ns ldrk gS & (7) fuf"k) vkbVeksa dh cjkenxh vfHk;qDr ls èkkjk 50 ds vUrxZr fu/kkZfjr izfd;k dks viuk;s cxSj ml ij fo'okl ugha fd;k tk ldrk vkSj mls fo'oluh; lk{; ds :i esa fuf"k) oLrqvksa ds /kkj.k djus ds vkjksi dks fl) djus ds okLrs ugha ekuk tk ldrk & m)`r fu.kZ; (1994) 6 SCC 569, (1974) 1 SCC 345 ij vk/kkfjr gSA ¼izLrj 12 ls 14½

       ¼c½ Lokid vkS"kf/k ,oa euksRrstd inkFkZ vf/kfu;e] 1985] /kkjk 50 ds lEcU/k esa deZpkjh lk{kh dk lk{; vkSj mldh fo'oluh;rk & ;g vk'kk dh tkrh gS fd vfHk;kstu ds dsl dh iqf"V esa dksbZ Lora= lk{; izLrqr fd;k tkuk pkfg, & ijUrq ;g dksbZ vya?; fu;e ugha gS & ifCyd lk{kh dk fy;k tkuk Hkh vius vki esa lEiw.kZ ugha gSA ¼izLrj 16½

       ¼l½ lekurk dk fl)kUr & leku U;k; dk Lo:i & tc nks ;k vf/kd lg&vfHkqDrksa dks ltk lqukbZ xbZ gS rks mudh ltkvksa esa dksbZ Hkh egRoiw.kZ fHkérk dk leqfpr Li"Vhdj.k fn;k tkuk pkfg, & lekurk dk fl)kUr ykxw djrs gq, nksuksa vfHk;qDrksa dk ,d gh vijk/k esa Qaluk t#jh gS vkSj ,dy fopkj.k esa nks"kflf) dk gks tkuk vko';d gS] ifj.kker% ,d lg vfHk;qDr og gksrk gS ftls ,d tSlh dk;Zokgh esa nwljs vfHk;qDr ds lkFk nf.Mr fd;k tk,A ¼izLrj 18 ls 23½

JUDGMENT

H.L. Dattu, J. — This appeal, is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 926-SB of 1997 dated 7.12.2007, whereby and where under, the High Court has upheld the conviction of the appellant by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, vide judgment and order dated 5.11.1997/6.11.1997 in Sessions Case No. 14 of 1996, for offences punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

2. The factual matrix of the case is as under : That on 24.1.1996, ASI Maya Ram accompanied by other police officials, namely, Head Constable Raja Ram and Constables Gian Chand and Shyam Singh was on patrol duty. The said police party was present near the Markanda Bridge when the accused along with another person Randhir Singh were seen coming from the side of Ismailabad. On seeing the police party, the appellant and other person Randhir Singh made an attempt to turn back and escape. However, the police over-powered them as their activities were found suspicious. Thereafter, they were served with a notice under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) vide memo (Ex. PD) giving an option to them to be searched either by the Gazetted officer or the Magistrate. They signed the memo by making the choice to be searched by the Gazetted Officer and they were arrested by the Head Constable Raja Ram and C-1 Gian Chand. Both of them were produced before the then D.S.P., Pehowa, Shri Paramjit Singh Ahlawat who is a Gazetted Officer, and on his direction, the bag that they were carrying was searched before him. The bag that was carried by the appellant on his shoulder was found to be containing 500 grams of charas wrapped in wax paper. Out of that, 50 grams of charas was taken as sample. Thereafter, the sample and residue were sealed separately with seal ‘MR’ of the Investigating Officer and ‘PSA’ of the D.S.P. Seal MR was handed over to HC Raja Ram while seal ‘PSA’ was retained by the D.S.P. himself. FIR was registered being Case F.I.R. No. 14 dated 24.1.1996 and the property was taken into possession by drawing a mahazar. The rough site plan was also prepared and the accused was arrested after informing the grounds of arrest. The statements of witnesses were recorded and challan was issued on receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner Exhibit PH. The accused was charge sheeted under Section 20 of the Act and he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The other person who was also apprehended on the same day, was also charge sheeted and tried separately.

CASE OF PROSECUTION BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT :

3. The prosecution examined Constable Balkar Singh PW-1, MHC Som Nath PW-2, DSP Paramjit Singh Ahlawat PW-3, Head Constable Raja Ram PW-4, ASI Maya Ram PW-5 and SI Dilpanjir Singh PW-6. The prosecution also got marked the Chemical Examination Report and closed the prosecution evidence. The accused was called upon to lead evidence in defence, if any. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code was recorded by putting incriminating evidence against him. Being confronted with incriminating circumstance appearing against him, the accused pleaded innocence and false implication.

4. The case of the appellant before the Sessions Court :

(a) that there was no strict compliance of the Section 50 of the Act.

(b) independent witnesses not joined and associated during the search.

(c) that the accused was falsely implicated in the case.

DECISION OF SESSIONS COURT :

5. The Additional Sessions Judge has observed that the accused was given an option, whether he should be searched by a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and after obtaining his option, he was produced before Deputy Superintendent of Police, who is a Gazetted Officer and on his direction the accused was searched and, therefore, there is compliance of Section 50 of the Act. Secondly, the prosecution has shown tha


































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top