GURJANT SINGH @ JANTA versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2013] 12 S.C.R. 180 · Decided: 28-10-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S. NIJJAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2013] 12 S.C.R. 180 
GURJANT SINGH @ JANTA 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1868 of 2013) 
OCTOBER 28, 2013 
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND FAKKIR MOHAMED 
IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] 
NARCOTIC 
DRUGS 
AND 
PSYCHOTROPIC 
C SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985: 
s. 50 - Requirement and purpose of search and seizuri9 
in presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate - Explained. 
ss.42 and 50 rlw s.15 - Appellant caught carrying 3 bags 
D of poppy husk in tractor trolley - Conviction of accused and 
sentence of 10 years RI and fine of Rs. 1 lakhs u/s 15 -
Upheld by High Court - Held: Compliance of s. 50 of 
conducting search in the presence of Gazetted Officer or a 
Magistrate, cannot be an empty formality and cannot be dealt 
E with lightly by courts -- Conclusion of trial court that ss.42 and 
50 were not applicable to the case was a total 
misunderstanding of legal provisions in the light of facts 
placed before it -- Judgment of trial court and confirmation of 
the same by High Court cannot be sustained -- Conviction 
F and sentence imposed on appellant is set aside. 
s. 50 - Search and seizure in presence of Gazetted Officer 
or Magistrate - Held: In the instant case, trial court omitted to 
examine defence of appellant that the officer in whose1 
G presence search was carried out was not a regularly promotecl 
D.S.P. but an "own rank pay D.S.P. ". 
Criminal appeal -- Duty of appellate court - Held: High 
Court being the first appellate court was required to 
independently reappraise the entire material, and record the 
H 
180 
GURJANT SINGH @ JANTA v. STATE OF PUNJAB 181 
conclusions supported by cogent reasons -- High Court failed 
A 
to independently examine the correctness of findings 
recorded by trial court and simply extracted a portion of the 
judgment of trial court, while affirming the conviction-- It failed 
to exercise its jurisdiction in dismissing the appeal. 
The appellant was prosecuted for committing an 
offence u/s of 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic 
Substances Act, 1985 on the allegation that on 4.4.1996 
at 00.15 A.M., he was carrying 3 gunny bags weighing 34 
B 
kg. each of poppy husk in the tractor-trolly, which was 
C 
searched in the presence of PW-3. The appellant, in his 
statement u/s 313 CrPC stated that he was falsely 
implicated in the case and he was taken away from his 
house in the presence of his wife. He got examined his 
wife and two more witnesses. His plea of non-compliance 
of ss.42 and 50 was turned down by the trial court D 
holding that there was no necessity to comply with s.50 
and on that basis it did not go into the question whether 
PW-3 was a gazetted officer. The trial court convicted the 
appellant u/s 15 and sentenced him to 10 years RI and a 
fine of Rs. 1 lakh. The High Court dismissed the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The ratiocination of the trial court in 
having held that ss.42 and 50 of the NDPS Act were not 
attracted to the case on hand was not correct. [para 12) 
[188-E] 
State of Punjab vs. Balbir Singh 1994 (2) SCR 208 = 
(1994) 3 sec 299 - held inapplicable 
1.2 The distinct feature and the most crucial aspect 
E 
F 
G 
of the case was that P.W.6 noticed three gunny bags 
lying in the tractor of the appellant and felt that some 
incriminating substance was kept in those gunny bags. 
P.W.6, as an investigating officer, felt the need to invoke 
H 
182 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 12 S.C.R. 
A the provisions of s.50 of the NDPS Act and thereby to 
provide an opportunity to the appellant for holding any 
search in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a 
Magistrate. When once P.W.6 could assimilate the legal 
requirement as stipulated u/s 50, the conclusion of the 
B trial court in having held that ss.42 and 50 were not 
applicable to the case on hand was a total 
misunderstanding of the legal provisions in the light of 
the facts placed before it. The trial court failed to 
understand principle No. 1 set out in paragraph 25 of the 
c decision in Balbir Singh in the proper perspective. 
Consequently, the conclusion arrived at by trial court for 
convicting the appellant was wholly unjustified. [para 11;-
17] [191-C-G; 192-C-D] 
1.3 The purpose of s.50 is to ensure that on the one 
D hand, the holding of a search and seizure was not a farce 
of an exercise in order to falsely implicate a person by 
unscrupulous police authorities, while on the other hand 
to prevent an accused from committing an offence of a 
serious nature against

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