AJMER SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2010] 2 S.C.R. 785 · Decided: 15-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010) 2 S.C.R. 785 
AJMER SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 436 of 2009) 
FEBRUARY 15, 2009 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: 
s.20 - Prosecution under - Conviction by courts below c 
- On appeal, conviction upheld. 
s. 50 - Applicability of - In case of search and recovery 
from bag, briefcase, container etc. - Held: Such case does 
not come within ambit of s. 50 - The provision is applicable 
0 
only in a case of search of person. 
Evidence - Official witness - Not corroborated by 
independent witness - In a case under Narcotic Drugs and 
Psychotropic Substances Act - Authenticity of - Held: 
Normally in a charge under the Act, corroboration from 
E 
independent witness is expected, but it is not inviolable rule 
- The obligation to take public witness is not absolute. 
Criminal Law - Principle of parity - Applicability of -
Held: The principle is applicable to the co-accused i.e. the 
F 
accused who is involved in the same crime and must be 
convicted in single trial - It is not applicable in a case where 
the other accused is convicted in a separate trial arising out 
of separately registered FIR. 
Words and Phrases: 
'Search of person' - Meaning of, in the context of s. 50 
• of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 
fll 
785 
G 
H 
786 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
'Co-accused' - Meaning of 
The Police party, while on patrol duty apprehended 
appellant accused alongwith another accused finding 
their activities as suspicious. The accused were given an 
8 option to be searched either by the Gazetted Officer or 
the Magistrate. They opted to be searched by Gazetted 
Officer. On direction of the Gazetted Officer, the bag they 
were carrying was searched before him. The bag carried 
by the appellant-accused was found containing 500 gms 
of charas. The accused was arrested and charge-sheeted 
C u/s. 20 of the Act. The other accused was tried separately. 
Trial Court convicted the appellant-accused. High Court 
confirmed the conviction. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant contented that his conviction was illegal in 
D view of non-compliance of provision under Section 50 of 
the Act; that the evidence of official witnesses was not 
corroborated by independent witnesses; and that as the 
other accused was awarded lesser punishment, on the 
principle of parity, punishment awarded to the appellant-
E accused was not justified. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The question of compliance or non-
compliance of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and 
F Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is relevant only 
where search of a person is involved and the said 
Section is not applicable nor attracted where no search 
of a person is involved. Search and recovery from a bag, 
brief case, container, etc., does not come within the ambit 
G of Section 50 of the Act. [Para 13] [797-H; 798-A-B] 
H 
1.2 Applying the interpretation of the word "search 
of person" to facts of present case, it is clear that the 
compliance of Section 50 is not required. Therefore, the 
AJMER SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 
787 
search conducted by the Investigation Officer and the 
A 
evidence collected thereby, is not illegal. [Para 15] [799-
G-H; 800-A] 
State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172, 
followed 
Ali Mustaffa Abdul Rahman Moosa vs. State of Kera/a, 
(1994) 6 SCC 569; Pooran Mal vs. Director of Inspection 
(Investigating), New Delhi and Ors. (197 4) 1 SCC 345; Madan 
Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 2003 Crl. L. J. 3868; State 
B 
of Himachal Pradesh vs. Pawan Kumar, 2005 4 SCC 350, 
C 
relied on 
2.1. It is not correct to say that the evidence of the 
official witnesses cannot be relied upon as their testimony 
has not been corroborated by any independent witness. 
0 
It is clear from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses 
PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5, that efforts were made by the 
investigating party to include independent witness at the 
time of recovery, but none was willing. It is true that a 
charge under the Act is serious and carries onerous 
E 
consequences. The minimum sentence prescribed under 
F 
the Act is imprisonment of 10 years and fine. In this 
situation, it is normally expected that there should be 
independent evidence to support the case of the 
prosecution. However, it is not an inviolable rule. 
Therefore, in the peculiar circumstances of this case, it 
would be travesty of justice, if the appellant is 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.