State of Haryana v Mai Ram Son of Mam Chand

[2008] 11 S.C.R. 586 **ii** A ## STATE OF HARYANA _v._ MAI RAM SON OF MAM CHAND (Criminal Appeal No.211 of 2001) JULY 31, 2008 B # **[DR. ARIJI! PASAYAT AND DR. MU_l-(UNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.]** ): _Narcotic prugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985:_ c _[ss. ][17 and ][50. ]_ _Search_ - _On basis of suspicion_ - _Held: Law does not require recording of elaborate reasons for entertaining suspicion about an accused._ _Seizure_ - _Of contraband article_ - _Only police officials,_ D PWs _1 and 2 examined as witnesses_ - _High Court holding that the prosecution version became vulnerable for non-examination of persons who were not official witnesses_ - _Correctness of_ - _Held: -Not correct, since no material brought on_ E _[record ][by ][defence ][to ][discredit the evidence ][of ][official witnesses ] and further PWs 1 and 2 categorically stated that no other person was willing to depose_ as _witness._ D _Seizure_ - _Of contraband article_ - _After search of bag carried by accused_ - _High Court holding that there was violation[Correctness ][of ]_[-] _[Held: Not correct ]_ F _[of ][the provisions ][of ]_[s. ] _[50 ]_[-] - _s. 50 only applies in case of personal search of_ a _person_ - _It does not extend to search of_ a _vehicle or_ a _container or_ a _bag, or premises_ - _Language of s. 50 is implicitly clear that the search has to be in relation to_ a _person_ as _contrasted to search[Hence, finding ][of ][High Court ]_ G _[of ][premises, vehicles ][or ][articles ]_[-] _regarding non-compliance of_ s. _50 is without substance._ H **According to the prosecution, when Respondent alighted from a train, police officials stopped him at the railway station itself on basis of suspicion and after** 586 _'f_ STATE OF HARYANA _v._ MAI RAM SON OF MAM CHAND 587 search, seized about 1.5 kgs of contraband article (opium) A from the bag carried by Respondent. Trial Court found the Respondent guilty under s.17 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for 10 years. On appeal, High Court difected acquittal of the ReB spondent on the ground that there was violation of the provisions of s.50 of the Act; that elaborate reasons were not recorded about the suspicion regarding Respondent being in possession of opium; that though the recovery was purportedly effected at the railway station and many C independent witnesses would have been available, but only two police officials PW-1 and PW-2 were examined and further that there was no evidence to show that the seal of the samples collected were intact. B In appeal to this Court, the appellant-State contended[D ] that s.50 of the Act has no application because there was no question of personal search and the search was of the bag carried by the accused; that there was no requirement in law to record the reasons for the suspicion; that merely because police officials were examined as witE nesses, tha~ cannot be a ground to suspect the prosecution version and finally that there was not even a suggestion during the examination of the witnesses that the seals were not intact and therefore, the High Court's reasoning and conclusions are not sustainable. F Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD:1.There is nothing in law that elaborate reasons for entertaining a suspicion about an accused, carrying contraband articles should be recorded. The High G Court was clearly in error in holding that the reason for the suspicion was not recorded. (Para 8] [591 G-H] 2. No material was brought on record by the defence to discredit the evidence of the official witnesses. The ul- H [2008] 11 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 588 A timate question is whether the evidence of the official witness suffers from any infirmity. In the instant case nothing of the nature could be pointed out. Further PWs 1 and 2 categorically stated that no other person was willing to depose as witness. Therefore, the High Court was clearly 8 in error in holding that the prosecution version became vulnerable for non-examination of persons who were not official witnesses. [Para 8J [592 A-BJ 3. The Trial Court found that the seals were intact as deposed by the official witnesses. The High Court came c to an abrupt conclusion that there was no evidence to show that the seals were intact. As rightly submitted by the State no such question was raised and on the contrary the Trial Court found that the evidence of official witnesses clearly establish that the seals were intact. [Paras D 9, 1 OJ [592 C-DJ 4. So far as applicability of s.50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psy.chotropic Substances Act, 1985 is concerned, the High Court's view is clearly indefensible. A bare reading E[of ][s.50 ][shows ][that ][it ][only ][applies ][in case ][of ][personal ] search of a person. It does not extend to search of a vehicle or a container or a bag, or premises. The language of s.50 is implicitly clear that the search has to be in relation to a person as contrasted to search of premises, vehicles or articles. Above being the position, the finding F regarding non-compliance of s.50 is also without any substance. [Paras 11, 12, 13J [592 D-E 593 8-C] _State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh_ (1999) 6 SCC 172 - followed. > G _Ka/ema Tumba v. State of Maharashtra and Anr._ JT (1999) 8 SC 293 and _Gurbax Singh v. State of Haryana_ (2001) 3 sec 28 - relied on. _J_ _Madan Lal and Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh_ (2003) > [referred to. ] H[6 Supreme 382 -] 589 STATE OF HARYANA _v._ MAI RAM SON OF MAM CHAND [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] |CaseLaw|LawReference||A| |---|---|---|---| |JT (1999) 8SC293|relied on|Para 12|| |(1999)ssec112|•followed|Para 12|| |(2001>3sec28|relied on|Para 12|B| |(2003) 6 Supreme 382|referredto|Para 12 ·|| A CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 211 of 2001 From the final Judgment and Order dated 2.12.1999 of c the High Court of Punjab in Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 538-SB of 1988 Naresh Bakshi and T.V. George for the Appellant. Prem Malhotra for the Respondent. D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, directing acquittal of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused'). The respondent was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 17 of the Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (in short 'NDPS Act') by learned Additional Sessions Judge 111, Hissar. He found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 17 of the Act ~nd was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 10 years E F 2. Background facts giving rise to the trial are as follows: On 3.1.1988, lshwar Singh, Sub Inspector along with ASI Ram Kishan and 3 Constables was present at platform No.3 near Railway bridge. At about 8.30 p.m. one train came from G the side of Sadalpur, Chandgi Ram PW was also with the police party at that time. Accused Mai Ram alighted from that train and started walking towards the engine. He was carrying one bag (Ex.P1) in his right hand.' On suspicion, he was stopped. First of all, the Sub Inspector served him with a notice Ex. PA H 590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R. -1' A and told him that he (S.I.) suspected that he (accused) was carrying some contraband article like opium and Ganja etc. and if he (accused) wanted he could be searched before the Magistrate or the Gazetted Officer. But the accused gave in writing that he (S.I.) could search him himself and the accused also B[made ][an ][endorsement Ex.PA/1 to this effect. Then the Sub In-] specter gave his search to the accused and th~re after searched bag (Ex.P1) carried by the accused which contained 1-1/2 kgs. of opium, without any licence or permit. The S.I. took 25 grams of opium as a sample out of the recovered opium and put the c[remaining opium ][in ][tin box (Ex.P.2). He then sealed the sample ] and tin-box (Ex.P2) with the seal of IS and the seal after use was given to Chandi Ram PW. The articles were taken into possession vide memo Ex.P.3 attested by the PWs. Thereafter, the personal search of the accused was effected and a ticket Ex.P3 and a cash amount of Rs.45/- were also recovered from D his possession which were taken into possession vide the recovery memo Ex.PC attested by the PWs and thumb marked by the accused. The accused was arrested after telling him the grounds of arrest Ruea f;x.PD was sent to the Police Station E[on ][the basis of which formal ][F.l.R/ ][Ex. ][PD/1 ][was recorded. Rough ] site plan Ex.PE with correct marginal notes was prepared. Statement of witnesses was recorded. After returning to the Police Station, the case property was deposited with the MMC with the seals intact. The S.I. also telephonically informed the Dy. S.P. regarding seizure of opium. After the investigation, the acF cused was challaned by the Sub Inspector lshwar Singh. 3. Learned Trial Judge found that the prosecution established its case and accordingly convicted and imposed sentence as aforesaid. G G 4. An appeal was filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Learned Single Judge allowed the appeal holding that there was violation of the provisions of Section 50 of the Act. It was noted that elaborate reasons were not recorded about the suspicion about the accused being in possession of H[opium. It was also noted that the recovery was said to have ] I{' J. _,,_,,, "- } (._ ·- ., STATE OF HARYANA _v._ MAI RAM SON OF MAM CHAND [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 591 ~ 7'. --; ~ 't been effected at the railway station and many independent witnesses would have been available. But only police officials were examined as PWs.1 and 2. There was no evidence to show that the seals were inta'ct. A 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that B Section 50 has no application because there was no question of personal search and the search was of bag which was carried by the accused. Additionally, there was no requirement in law to record the reasons for the suspicion. Further, the accused was apprehended when he got down at the railway station about 8.30 p.m. PWs 1 and 2 categorically stated in their evidence[c ] that no other person was willing to be a witness. Merely because the officials witnesses were examined, that cannot be a ground to suspect the prosecution version. There was not even a suggestion during the examination of the witnesses that the seals were not intact. Therefore, the High Court's reasoning D and conclusions are not sustainable. 6. Leaned counsel for the respondent-accused on the other hand submitted that the respondent is presently about 70 years old. The quantity stated to have been recovered is about 1.5 kilos. Subsequently, there has been amendment and by notification dated 2.10.2001 the commercial quantity is 2.5 kg. E 7. It is submitted that after 20 years, and having already suffered some year of custody, respondent should. not be asked to surrender to custody. F 8. The Trial Court record categorical finding that the requisite procedure was followed and even if there was no requirement for giving a notice in terms of Section 50 of the Act as no personal search was made, requisite procedures were followed. There is nothing in law that elaborate reasons for entertaining a G suspicion about an accused, car r Jing contraband articles should be recorded. The High Court was clearly in error in holding that the reason for the suspicion was not recorded. So far as the examination of only official witness is concerned, it is to be noted that the only independent witness who was examined to speak H [2008] 11 ~.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 592 A about the seizure did not support the prosecution version. No material was brought on record by the defence to "discredit the evidence of the official witnesses. The ultimate question is whether the evidence of the official witness suffers from any infirmity. In the instant case nothirog of the nature could be pointed B out. Further PWs 1 and 2 categorically stated that no other person was willing to depose as witness. Therefore, the High Court was clearly in error in holding that the prosecution version became vulnerable for non-examination of persons who were not official witnesses. c 9. It is to be noted that Trial Court found that the seals were .lo' _ intact as deposed by the official witnesses. The High Court came to an abrupt conclusion that there was no evidence to show that the seals were intact. D E 10. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for the State no such question was raised and on the contrary the Trial Court found that the evidence of official witnesses clearly establish that the seals were intact. 11. So far as the applicability of Section 50 is concerned, the High Court's view is clearly indefensible. Section 50 reads as follows: _-¥ 't"'_ "50. _Conditions under which search of persons shall be conducted._ - F G H - (1) When any officer duly authorised under Section 42 is about to search any person under the provisions of Section 41, Section 42 or Section 43, he shall, if such person so requires, take such person without unnecessary delay to the nearest gazetted officer of any of the departments mentioned in Section 42 or to the nearest Magistrate. - (2) If such requisition is made, the officer may detain the person until he can bring him before the gazetted officer or the Magistrate referred to in sub-section (1 ). ).. _1_ STATE OF HARYANA _v._ MAI RAM SON OF 593 MAM CHAND [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] - (3) The gazetted officer or the Magistrate before whom A any such person is brought shall, if he sees no reasonable ground for search, forthwith discharge the person but otherwise shall direct that search be made. - (4) No female shall be searched by anyone excepting a B female." - , 12. A bare reading of Section 50 shows that it only applies in case of personal search of a person. It does not extend to search of a vehicle or a container or a bag, or premises. c [(See _Kalema Tumba v. State of Maharashtra and Anr._ (JT 1999 (8) SC 293), _State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh_ (1999 (6) SCC 172) and _Gurbax Singh v. State of Haryana_ (2001 (3) SCC 28)]. The language of Section 50 is implicitly clear that the search has to be in relation to a person as contrasted to D search of premises, vehicles or articles. This position was settled beyond doubt by the Constitution Bench in _Baldev Singh's_ case (supra). A similar question was examined in _Madan Lal and Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh_ (2003 (6) Supreme 382). E 13. Above being the position, the finding regarding noncompliance of Section 50 of the Act is also without any substance. 14. Looked from any angle the judgment of the High Court is clearly indefensible and is set asid~. F 15. Respondent shall surrender to custody forthwith to serve the remainder of sentence. B.8.8. Appeal allowed.