- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Ran Singh v. State Of Haryana .
Factual and Procedural Background
The appeal challenged a judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court (Criminal Appeal No. 852-SB of 1986, dated 3-8-1995) which had dismissed the appellant’s appeal and maintained his conviction and sentence as awarded by the Sessions Judge.
According to the prosecution, at about 5.45 p.m. near Devsar Feeder Bridge, Village Kalwas, ASI Hans Raj (with HC Ram Phal and other constables) noticed the appellant. The appellant allegedly attempted to run but was apprehended. ASI Hans Raj searched the appellant’s body and then the bag he was carrying, allegedly recovering 1.5 kgs of opium. A 50 gm sample was taken and the remainder was seized under a memo. The contraband was sent to the police station for recording the FIR, and the sample was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, which reported that it was opium. The appellant was charged under the Opium Act.
The evidence indicated that the Investigating Officer was not aware that the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) had come into force with effect from 14-11-1985, and admittedly did not comply with the requirements of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. While granting leave, the Court noted the appellant’s reliance on a Supreme Court decision concerning Section 50 compliance.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the admitted non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act vitiated the conviction in light of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence treating Section 50 safeguards as mandatory.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Saiyad Mohd. Saiyad Umar Saiyad v. State of Gujarat (1995) 3 SCC 610 | Section 50 NDPS Act safeguards must be scrupulously followed; the accused must be informed of the right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate; compliance is mandatory and cannot be presumed without cogent evidence. | The Court held the precedent was squarely applicable in favour of the accused because Section 50 was admittedly not complied with, warranting reversal of the conviction. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court relied on its earlier decision in Saiyad Mohd. Saiyad Umar Saiyad v. State of Gujarat addressing the “procedural requirements and safeguards” of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. It reiterated that, given the grave consequences of NDPS offences and stringent punishments, the statutory safeguard under Section 50 must be “scrupulously followed.” The Court emphasized that the accused’s right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate is an important right and that the requirement is mandatory, imposing a duty on courts to ensure compliance “in letter and spirit.”
Applying that principle, the Court noted that the Investigating Officer admittedly did not comply with Section 50. On that basis, it found the precedent “squarely attracted” against the prosecution and in favour of the accused, justifying interference with the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court.
Holding and Implications
ALLOWED; CONVICTION SET ASIDE; ACQUITTAL ORDERED.
The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the trial court and the High Court, acquitted the appellant of the charge, and directed that he be set at liberty at once unless required in any other offence. The decision’s direct effect was to terminate the prosecution and punishment in this case on account of non-compliance with Section 50 as treated mandatory by the cited precedent; the opinion does not indicate that any new legal principle was created beyond applying the existing Supreme Court decision.
Order
1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 852-SB of 1986 dated 3-8-1995 whereby the appeal of the appellant was dismissed maintaining the conviction and sentence awarded to him by the learned Sessions Judge. The prosecution case briefly stated was that ASI Hans Raj along with HC Ram Phal and five other constables noticed the appellant at about 5.45 p.m near Devsar Feeder Bridge, Village Kalwas. On seeing the police party the appellant tried to run away but was apprehended. ASI Hans Raj personally searched the body of the appellant and thereafter the bag which he was carrying and found 1-1/2 kgs of opium. He took a sample of 50 gms and attached the rest under a seizure memo and sent the contraband goods to the police station to record the first information report. He sent the sample to the Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis. The analysis revealed that it was opium. He was charged under the opium Act. It may here be mentioned that the evidence reveals that the Investigating Officer was not aware of the fact that the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called “the Act”), had already come into force w.e.f 14-11-1985. Since the Investigating Officer was not aware of the same he could not be expected to strictly abide by the procedure for the investigation of such offences under the Act. Admittedly, he did not comply with the requirements of Section 50 of the Act. That is why while granting leave we had stated that reliance was placed on behalf of the appellant on the decision of this Court reported in Saiyad Mohd. Saiyad Umar Saiyad v. State of Gujarat (1995) 3 SCC 610.
2. In the afore-mentioned decision which dealt with the procedural requirements and safeguards of Section 50 of the Act this Court observed that having regard to the grave consequences that may entail on the charge being proved and the strict sentence and heavy fine that may be imposed under the Act, it is essential that the legislative safeguards contained in Section 50 should be scrupulously followed by the Investigating Officer and the right of the accused to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate is an important right which cannot be wished away and must be strictly adhered to. This Court further pointed out that this requirement was mandatory and cast a duty on the Court to ensure that it had been complied with in letter and spirit. In para 10 of the judgment, this Court observed as follows:
“10. … It is necessary, therefore, that courts dealing with offences under the NDPS Act should be very careful to see that it is established to their satisfaction that the accused has been informed by the officer concerned that he had a right to choose to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. It need hardly be emphasised that the accused must be made aware of this right or protection granted by the statute and unless cogent evidence is produced to show that he was made aware of such right or protection, there would be no question of presuming that the requirements of Section 50 were complied with.”
3. It would thus be seen from the decision of this Court that the decision relied on, to which one of us (Ahmadi, C.J) was a party, is squarely attracted in favour of the accused and against the prosecution. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of the trial court as well as the High Court and acquit the accused of the charge levelled against him and order that he be set at liberty at once unless required for any other offence.
Alert