LexJARNAIL SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2011] 2 S.C.R. 888 JARNAIL SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB (Criminal Appeal No. 1960 of 2009) FEBRUARY 11, 2011 [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, JJ.] Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: s.50 - Scope, ambit and applicability of- Held: S.50 can be invoked only in cases where the drug/narcotic is recovered as a consequence of body search of the accused - In case, the recovery of the narcotic is made from a container being 0 carried by an individual, the provisions of s.50 would not be attracted. Opium seized from accused - Gap of 12 days between the seizure and the sending of opium sample to the Chemical examiner - Held: On facts, the delay in sending the samples E was not fatal to the prosecution case - There was no infirmity in the link evidence - Mere delay in sending the sample to the Chemical Examiner not sufficient to conclude that the sample was tampered with - Report of the Chemical f=xaminer indicated that the seals were intact when the sample was F received and tallied with the sample impression of the seal - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.293. Evidence Act, 1872: s.25 - Offence under the NDPS Act - Accused G apprehended by police party - Consent statement made by accused expressing his confidence to be searched in presence of Police Inspector- Whether inadmissible u/s.25 - Held: The consent statement signed by the accused was H 888 JARNAIL SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 889 not used as a confession, iherefore, the bar under s.25 was A not applicable - No confession was made in this case through the consent given by the accused with regard to any of the ingredients of the offence with which he was subsequently. charged. B Independent witness - Non-examination of - Effect - Held: Merely because the prosecution did not examine any independent witness, would not necessarily lead to the :'conclusion that the accused had been falsely implicated - On facts, the prosecution offered a plausible explanatibn with C regard to the non-joining of independent witnesses. Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136 - Jurisdiction and power of Supreme Court under - Held: An appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution cannot be converted into a third appeal on facts - Though the jurisdiction and the powers of D the Supreme Court underArticle 136 are very wide, even then, interference with concurr~nt findings of fact would be an exception and not the rule. The appellant was apprehended when he displayed E hesitation on seeing a police party and tried to run away. 1.75 Kgs of contraband (opium) was recovered from a bag (thaill) being carried by the appellant. The appellant could not produce any valid licence or permit for possession of the said opium. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. The conviction and F sentence was. affirmed by the High Court. G In the present appeal, the appellant challenged his conviction on various grounds, viz. (1) that there were so many independent witnesses and yet only police officials were examined as prosecution witnesses; (2) that the H 890 SUPREME COURT REP.ORTS [2011) 2 S.C.R. A Court below did not consider the statement of the appellant as recorded under Section 313 CrPC; (3) that the mandatory provision in Section 50 of the NDPS Act was not followed; the appellant was never given any option nor taken to the nearest Gazetted officer or B Magistrate for his search and (4) that there was delay of twelve days in sending the contraband sample for Chemical Examination for which no reasonable justification was given by the prosecution. c Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD:1. An appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution cannot be converted into a third appeal on facts. Though the jurisdiction and the powers of this court und~r Article 136 are very wide, even then, interference D with concurrent findings of fact would be an exception and not the rule. In the instant case, the trial Court as also the High Co:.::1 meticulously examined and re-examined the entire evidence. On such close scrutiny, both the courts concurrently found that the prosecution had E proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. [Para 8) [898- G) Ganga Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar (2005) 6 SCC 211 - referred to. F 2.1. Merely because the pr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.