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

2011 Supreme(SC) 335

2011 (4) SCC 441
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. SATHASIVAM, Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN
Harjit Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 816 of 2011
Decided On: March 30, 2011

Headnote:Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985-Section 18-Recovery of huge quantity of opium-Conviction and sentence-Material recovered from appellant was of a commercial quantity and could not have been for personal consumption-Material so recovered from appellant is opium in terms of Section 2(xv) of NDPS Act-As such, determination of contents of morphine in opium becomes totally irrelevant for the purpose of deciding whether substance would be a small or commercial quantity-Percentage of morphine is not a decisive factor for determination of quantum of punishment, as the opium is to be dealt with under a distinct and separate entry from that of morphine-Appeal dismissed. (Paras 21, 25 and 26)

       (2008) 5 SCC 161-Distinguished

       Statute Law-A penal provision providing for enhancing sentence does not operate retrospectively-Amendment (Notification dated 18.11.2009) provides for a procedure which may enhance sentence-Thus, its application would be violative of restrictions imposed by Article 20 of Constitution of India-Notification dated 18.11.2009 cannot be applied retrospectively. (Para 13)

JUDGMENT

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

Leave granted. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 19.5.2010 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 1711-SB/2005, by which the High Court has affirmed the judgment and order dated 2.9.2005 passed by learned Special Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, in Sessions Case No. 72T/5.9.03/7.10.04, by which the appellant stood convicted for the offence punishable under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as NDPS Act) and was sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default whereof, to undergo further RI for 6 months.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that on 4.7.2003, a police party was proceeding from Focal Point, Mandi Gobindgarh to G.T. Road on patrol duty in a government vehicle. When the police party reached near the culvert of minor in the area of village Ambe Majra, the police party spotted the appellant who was coming on foot, from the side of Ambe Majra carrying a plastic bag in his right hand. On seeing the police, the appellant turned to the left side of the road. The police party apprehended the appellant, being suspicious of him.

3. In the meantime, Ashok Kumar, an independent witness also came to the spot and joined the police party. The appellant was apprised of his right of being searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer and in that respect his statement was recorded. Shri Dinesh Partap Singh, Assistant Superintendent of Police, was summoned to the spot by the Investigating Officer and in his presence, Amarjit Singh, Inspector (P.W.3) searched the plastic bag of the appellant and the substance contained therein was found to be opium. Two samples of 10 gms. each of the opium were taken. The remaining opium was found to be 7.10 Kgs. The samples and the remaining opium were sealed and taken into possession by the police party.

4. A formal FIR was registered against the appellant; on personal search, an amount of Rs. 510/- was found with the appellant; the arrest memo of the accused was prepared and he was formally arrested. After completion of investigation and on receipt of the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory, confirming the contents of the sample to be of opium, a charge-sheet was filed against him for the offence punishable under Section 18 of the NDPS Act. He did not plead guilty to the charges and claimed trial.

5. The prosecution examined Manjinder Singh, Constable (P.W.1), Jagdish Singh, Head Constable (P.W.2), Amarjit Singh, Inspector (P.W.3), Dinesh Partap Singh, Assistant Superintendent of Police (P.W.4) and Dalip Singh, Sub Inspector (P.W.5). Ashok Kumar, an independent witness was not examined by the prosecution, as he had been won over by the appellant.

6. In his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant stated that the prosecution case was false; he had been taken by the police from his house and Rs.6,000/- had been snatched from him; he was not physically fit even to walk as he had met with an accident in 1999. The appellant also exam































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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