The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of an electricity board engineer for accepting a Rs 150 bribe in a 1985 trap, restating when it will disturb concurrent findings under Article 136. The courts below wrongly discarded proof that he was on leave on the date of an earlier alleged payment, and his defence that the notes were planted in a shirt hanging in the room was probable, especially as the notes were not treated with phenolphthalein (paras 11, 19-22, 26).
Resolving a split between two judges, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that Section 50 of the NDPS Act applies only to a search of the person, meaning the human body with its clothing and footwear. A bag, briefcase or other container carried by the accused is not part of his person, so Section 50 does not apply to its search. Both State appeals were allowed and remitted to the High Courts (paras 9-10, 23-24).
The Supreme Court set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court's acquittal of three men caught with 18 bags of poppy husk on a bullock cart. Section 50 applies only to a personal search, not to a vehicle, container, bag or premises, so the search of the bags on the cart did not attract it. The respondents were directed to surrender to serve the rest of their sentences (paras 3, 10, 12).
The Supreme Court acquitted a man sentenced to death for abducting and killing two boys, holding that his retracted judicial confession was uncorroborated and contradicted the medical evidence, so "it is not safe to convict the appellant solely on the basis of the alleged confession which has been retracted" (para 28). General corroboration of a retracted confession suffices (para 23).
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's acquittal of two Visakhapatnam Port Trust officers caught accepting Rs. 5,000 each, restoring their conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120B IPC with one year's imprisonment (paras 1, 3, 28). Once acceptance of gratification is proved, the presumption under Section 20(1) is compulsory, and acceptance need not be shown by direct evidence (paras 13-14).
The Supreme Court set aside a Madras High Court order quashing a corruption prosecution because the Inspector who registered the FIR had also investigated it. Nothing in the Code bars this; such an investigation can be assailed only for "bias or real likelihood of bias", which depends on the facts of each case (paras 3, 5). Bhagwan Singh and Megha Singh lay down no broad contrary rule (paras 7, 11).
The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of two men found sitting on 100 bags of poppy husk in a field. The police had not investigated how the bags reached the field or who owned them, and treated mere presence as possession. The prosecution failed to prove conscious possession, so the Punjab and Haryana High Court's acquittal of both stood (paras 1-2).
The Supreme Court upheld the proviso to Section 41(1) of the NDPS (Amendment) Act, 2001, which denies the amendment's lighter, quantity-based sentences to cases pending in appeal on 2 October 2001. Separating concluded trials from pending trials and investigations is a reasonable classification: applying the new Act to concluded trials could reopen them and defeat the aim of avoiding delay (paras 21-23). High Court rulings striking down the proviso were overruled (para 24).
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a woman found with 600 grams of heroin in a 1994 roadside search, and the acquittal of two men alleged to have supplied it (paras 6, 27-30). Section 50 prescribes no specific form: the suspect need only be made aware of the right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate (paras 21, 23). Section 42 covers a building, conveyance or enclosed place, while Section 43 covers public places (para 15).
The Supreme Court acquitted a farmer convicted under the NDPS Act after 17 ganja plants were found in a field. To prove cultivation there must be supporting evidence that the accused grew the plants; a few plants on the land are not enough, since plants may sprout naturally. Nothing showed the field was his alone or that he cultivated them (paras 4, 6-7).
The Supreme Court held that a man who enters into a marital relationship and, under the colour of that status, subjects the woman to cruelty is a ‘husband’ for Sections 498A and 304B IPC, whatever the legitimacy of the marriage (para 18). It set aside the High Court's summary refusal of leave to appeal against an acquittal resting on the husband's undissolved first marriage, and remitted the matter for a hearing on merits (para 27).
The Supreme Court upheld the NDPS convictions of two men found with 200 grams of opium each, holding that Section 50 prescribes no particular form for telling a suspect of his right (paras 2, 7, 15). A notice asking whether they would give the officer the search or be searched by a gazetted officer or magistrate was enough, as in Joseph Fernandez (paras 9-10, 13). "No specific words are necessary to be used to convey existence of the right" (para 9).