LexBOOTA SINGH & OTHERS versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 4 S.C.R. [2021] 4 S.C.R. 180 180 BOOTA SINGH & OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 421 of 2021) APRIL 16, 2021 [UDAY UMESH LALIT AND K. M. JOSEPH, JJ.] Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – ss. 42 & 43 – Governing provisions, if s.42 or s.43 – Non-compliance of s.42 – Secret information received by PW-4 (S.I.) that accused- appellants were selling poppy straw in a vehicle – Raid conducted by PW-4 along with fellow officials – Accused-appellants found sitting in a Jeep – Notice served u/s.50 – Search led to recovery of poppy straw – Trial court convicted appellants u/s.15 rejecting their plea of acquittal on ground of non-compliance of s.42 – The trial court held that s.42 was inapplicable, and that the case was covered by s.43 as recovery was effected from the appellants while they were sitting on road in a jeep at a public place – Conviction confirmed by High Court, which affirmed the view of trial court – On appeal, held: Evidence showed that the vehicle was not a public conveyance but was a vehicle belonging to one of the accused – Registration Certificate of the vehicle also did not indicate it to be a Public Transport Vehicle – Explanation to s.43 showed that a private vehicle would not come within the expression “public place” as explained in s.43 – Thus, the instant case would not come u/s.43 but would be governed by provisions of s.42 – However, on facts, s.42 having not been complied with at all, the appellants were entitled to acquittal. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.43 – Expression “public place” as explained in s.43 – Ambit of – Held: Explanation to s. 43 shows that a private vehicle would not come within the expression “public place” – Words and Phrases – Expression “public place”. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.42 – Requirements of – Substantial or adequate compliance vis-à-vis total non-compliance – Held: Total non-compliance of s.42 is A B C D E F G H 181 impermissible – The rigor of s.42 may get lessened in situations dealt with in Karnail Singh case but in no case, total non-compliance of s.42 can be accepted. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1.1. The evidence in the present case clearly shows that the vehicle was not a public conveyance but was a vehicle belonging to one the accused-appellants. The Registration Certificate of the vehicle, which has been placed on record also does not indicate it to be a Public Transport Vehicle. The explanation to Section 43 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 shows that a private vehicle would not come within the expression “public place” as explained in Section 43. The relevant provision would not be Section 43 but the case would come under Section 42. [Para 12][188-E-G] 1.2. It is an admitted position that there was total non- compliance of the requirement of Section 42. Total non- compliance of Section 42 is impermissible. The rigor of Section 42 may get lessened in situations dealt with in the conclusion drawn by this Court in Karnail Singh but in no case, total non- compliance of Section 42 can be accepted. In the circumstances, the accused-appellants are acquitted of the charge levelled against them. [Paras 13, 14 and 15][188-G-H; 189-A-B] Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana (2009) 8 SCC 539: [2009] 11 SCR 470 – followed. State of Rajasthan v. Jagraj Singh alias Hansa (2016) 11 SCC 687: [2016] 4 SCR 451– relied on. Sukhdev Singh v. State of Haryana, (2013) 2 SCC 212 – referred to. Case Law Reference [2009] 11 SCR 470 followed Para 8 [2016] 4 SCR 451 relied on Para 8 (2013) 2 SCC 212 referred to Para 8 BOOTA SINGH & OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA A B C D E F G H 182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 4 S.C.R. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 421 of 2021. From the Judgment and Order dated 03.03.2020 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRA-S-1759-SB-2004. Praveen Kumar, Rajnish Kumar Jha, Advs. for the Appellants. Rakesh Kumar Mudgal, AAG., Kailash Kumar Mudgal, Dr. Monika Gusain, Advs. for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. 1. This appeal challenges the judgment and final order dated 03.03.2020 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh dismissing CR A-S-1759-SB-2004 preferred by the appellants and affirming their conviction and sentence under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 19
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.