DEHAL SINGH versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Citation: [2010] 10 S.C.R. 598 · Decided: 31-08-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
c 
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 598 
DEHAL SINGH 
V. 
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH 
(Criminal appeal no. 1215 of 2005 etc.) 
AUGUST 31, 2010 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. 
PRASAD, JJ.] 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: 
s. 20 - Accused found in possession of large quantity of 
'charas' - Conviction - Plea that 15 gm difference in weight 
of samples when weighed in Laboratory, cast a doubt on 
credibility of prosecution case - HELD: In view of the fact that 
0 
the weighing scale and weight of a grocery shop were used 
by the authorised officer and in the Laboratory weight of the 
contraband was measured with precision scale, the small 
difference in weight loses its significance. 
ss. 20, 35 and 54 -
'Conscious possession' -
E Presumption - Burden to rebut the presumption - HELD: 
Court can presume conscious possession - It is for the 
person who claims to establish that he was not in conscious 
possession. 
F 
s. 50 -
On search of a car, huge quantity of 'charas' 
concealed in it recovered - Plea that accused were not 
apprised of their right of option to be searched before a 
gazetted officer or the nearest Magistrate - HELD: Provisions 
of s.50 are attracted in case of search of a person other than 
G a vehicle etc. - Since recovery was made from vehicle, 
provisions of s.50 were not required to be complied with. 
H 
s. 50 - Option to be searched before a gazetted officer or 
the nearest Magistrate - HELD: Option to choose is given to 
598 
DEHAL SINGH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH 599 
an accused when he has a right to choose -
It is 
A 
communication of right either to accept or reject - On-facts, 
though provision of s.50 was not attracted, accused were 
apprised of their right and, therefore, the provision. was 
complied with. 
· · ' 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
8 
ss. 313 and 315 - Statem·ent uls 313 - Nature and 
purpose of - Explained - HELD: Plea of accused that he had 
taken lift in the vehicle, from which a huge quantity of 'charas' 
was recovered, cannot be accepted only on the basis ofhis C 
statement uls 313, when he neither got examined himself ul 
s 315 nor any other person in defence - Evidence Act, 1872 
-s.3. 
On receipt of a secret information, PW-16 (Station 
House Officer) intercepted a car on a high way in 
Himachal Pradesh, occupied by the driver (A-1) and 
another person, a resident of Goa, sitting by the side of 
the driver. The car was searched with the help of a 
mechanic (PW-3) and 27 kg and 800 gm of 'charas' 
concealed between the shields and .the doors of the car, 
was recovered. The samples of the contraband were 
confirmed by the chemical examiner as 'charas'. The trial 
court convicted the two accused u/s 20 of the Narcotic 
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and 
sentenced them to 10 years RI and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh 
each. The High Court dismissed their appeals. 
In the instant appeals filed by the accused, it was 
contended that according to the prosecution, samples of 
D 
E 
F 
50 gm each were taken and sent to the Forensic Science 
G 
Laboratory, but net weight of the samples received in the 
laboratory was 65.5606 gm each; and discrepancy in the 
weight cast a serious doubt on the credibility of the 
recovery 
proceedings 
and, 
resultantly, 
on 
H 
600 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 
A trustworthiness of the prosecution case; that though 
option was given to the accused to be searched before 
a Gazetted Officer or the nearest Magistrate, but they were 
not apprised of their right in this regard and, therefore, 
the requirement of s.50 of the Act was not fulfilled. As 
B 
regards A-2, referring to his statement u/s 313 CrPC, it 
was additionally contended that he only took a lift in the 
car and, as such, could not be held to be in conscious 
possession of the contraband. 
c 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The difference of 15 gm. in weight, in the 
facts and circumstances of the instant case, is not of 
much" significance. Sample was taken by a common 
weighing scale and weight found in a grocery shop, 
D whereas the weight in the laboratory was recorded with 
precision scale. This would be evident from the fact that 
the weight of the sample recorded in the laboratory was 
65.5606 gm. It is common knowledge that weighing scale 
and weight kept in the grocery-shop are not of such 
E standard which can weigh articles with great accuracy. 
In this background, small difference in weight loses its 
significance, when 

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