Judgment Intelligence
Petition DismissedJarnail Singh v. State of Punjab
Criminal Appeal No. 1960 of 2009; reported as (2011) 3 SCC 521
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 11 February 2011
- Bench
- Justices B. Sudershan Reddy and Surinder Singh Nijjar
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 18, 50; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 25; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Sections 293, 313; Constitution of India — Article 136
Final Outcome
The appeal was dismissed; the Court found no perversity or miscarriage of justice in the concurrent findings of guilt (para 15).
Key holdings
- Section 50 can be invoked only where the drug is recovered as a consequence of a body search, not from a container carried by the accused (para 12).
- Not examining an independent witness does not by itself lead to the conclusion that the accused was falsely implicated (paras 9-10).
- A consent statement for the search, not used as a confession, is not barred by Section 25 of the Evidence Act (para 13).
- Mere delay in sending the sample to the Chemical Examiner does not show tampering where the link evidence and seals are proved (para 14).
- An appeal under Article 136 is not a third appeal on facts; concurrent findings are disturbed only in exceptional cases (paras 8, 15).
Brief Facts
On 23.09.1994 a police party saw the appellant coming along a canal path; he tried to run away on seeing them and was apprehended (para 2). He was carrying a bag (thaili) in his right hand, from which 1 kg and 750 grams of opium was recovered; he had no permit or licence (paras 1-3). The Additional Sessions Judge convicted him under Section 18 of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of one lakh rupees; the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed his appeal on 12.05.2008 (paras 1, 5). Before the Supreme Court he alleged false implication, non-compliance with Section 50 and delay in sending the sample (para 6).
Court's Findings
Both courts had concurrently found the case proved, and an appeal under Article 136 "cannot be converted into a third appeal on facts" (para 8). Not examining an independent witness does not necessarily mean false implication; this was neither a secret-information case nor a trap (para 9). The prosecution explained that the path was not frequently used and villagers declined to join, reluctance "neither strange nor unbelievable" (para 10). The defence witness, an ex-sarpanch, first appeared as a witness only on 13.05.1999 and had made no complaint, so his evidence was rightly discarded (para 11). Section 50 was complied with: the option was given and the appellant signed a consent statement (para 12). In any case, the opium came from the bag he carried, and Section 50 applies only where the drug is recovered on a body search, as Kalema Tumba, Megh Singh and Pawan Kumar show (para 12). The consent statement was not used as a confession, so Section 25 of the Evidence Act did not bar it (para 13). With the link evidence proved and the Chemical Examiner reporting the seals intact, the delay in sending the sample did not suggest tampering (para 14).
Legal Principle
Section 50 of the NDPS Act applies only when the drug is recovered on a search of the person; a recovery from a bag or other container carried by the accused falls outside it. Non-examination of independent witnesses, or delay in sending samples, is not fatal where the evidence is otherwise reliable (paras 9, 12, 14).
Precedents Relied Upon
- Ganga Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar (2005) 6 SCC 211
Principles on which the Supreme Court interferes with concurrent findings of fact under Article 136: only in exceptional circumstances such as perversity, error of law or misreading of evidence.
- Kalema Tumba v. State of Maharashtra (1999) 8 SCC 257
A drug found in a bag or other article carried by a person is not found from his person for Section 50.
- Megh Singh v. State of Punjab (2003) 8 SCC 666
Section 50 applies to a personal search and does not extend to a search of a vehicle, container, bag or premises.
View all precedents (5)
- State of Himachal Pradesh v. Pawan Kumar (2005) 4 SCC 350
The word ‘person’ in Section 50 means a human being with appropriate coverings, clothing and footwear; a bag, briefcase or other container cannot be treated as the body of a human being.
- Balbir Kaur v. State of Punjab (2009) 15 SCC 795
Delay in sending the samples is not by itself fatal to the prosecution where there is cogent evidence of seizure and the seals remained intact.
