JASBIR SINGH versus VIPIN KUMAR JAGGI AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 598 · Decided: 16-08-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
JASBIR SINGH 
v. 
VIPIN KUMAR JAGGI AND ORS. 
AUGUST 16, 2001 
B 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND RUMA PAL, JJ.] 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985-Section 64-
lmmunity from prosecution-Power-Exercise of-Whether permissible after 
rejection of application u/s. 307 Cr.P.C.-Held, permissible, the power can 
C be exercised at any time during the course of trial but before the judgment 
is delivered-Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sections 307 and 311. 
Criminal Procedure Code, 197 3-Sections 321 and 307-Distinction 
between. 
D 
Interpretation of Statutes-'Meaning of a Phrase-Arriving at of-Words 
take colour from the context in which they are used-Provision should not 
be broken down towards, and after defining each word individually weld 
them together to arrive at the meaning. 
Statutes-Conflict between-Overriding effect of-Held, the special Act 
E would override the general Act-And the later enactment would override the 
earlier enactment. 
Words and Phrases 
'Immunity from prosecution' and 'Prosecution'-Meaning of-In the 
F context of Section 64 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 
1985. 
Appellant-accused and respondent No.I-co-accused were prosecuted 
for ofTences under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotrophic Substances Act, 1985, 
G on the complaint of Narcotic Control Bureau (NCB). Respondent No. I made 
application under s.64 of the Act, before NCB for immunity from prosecution 
and subsequently, also made applications under Section 307 Cr.P.C. for 
grant of pardon, before Sessions Judge, which was supported by public 
prosecutor. After dismisslll of application under section 307, NCB allowed 
his applications under s.64 on the condition that evidence would be tendered 
H 
598 
JASB!R SINGH v. V!PIN KUMAR JAGGI 
599 
by him in the case. Thereafter, application by prosecution under S.311 A 
· Cr.P.C. for leave to exempt respondent No. I as a witness, was dismissed on 
the ground that after initiation of trial, powers under s.64 of the Act could 
not be exercised and the same would amount to vesting the power of judicial 
authority in the Government. 
Writ Petition filed by respondent No. 1, where appellant was not made 
party, was allowed by the High Court holding that the Sessions Judge was 
wrong limiting the power under Section 64 to a stage before the prosecution 
commenced; and that immediately after immunity is granted under s.64, 
respondent No. I stands discharged and could be examined as a witness. 
Appellant's application under Article 215 of the Constitution, and 
Section 482 Cr.P.C. for recalling its order were rejected by the High Court. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that power under s.64 of 
B 
c 
the Act could be exercised only before commencement of trial; and that once 
application u/s. 307 Cr.P.C. was rejected, it was not open to the Government D 
to grant immunity u/s. 64 of the Act on the same facts. 
Respondent raised preliminary objection as to maintainability of the 
appeal in view of the fact that he was not a party before the High Court. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. There is nothing in Section 64 of the Narcotic Drugs and 
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 to circumscribe the power of the Central 
E 
or State Government under Section 64, to a point of time prior to the 
commencement of the trial. Therefore if in any trial of offences under the F 
Act, it is felt by the Government (in this case NCB) that it is necessary to 
have the evidence of the co-accused, it can, subject to the conditions specified 
in Section 64(1 ), withdraw the case against such co-accused by granting him 
immunity. (612-G; 613-Al 
SA. Venkatraman v. Union of India, (1954) SC 376 and Thomas Dana G 
v. State of Punjab, AIR (1959) SC 375, distinguished. 
1.2. The order under Section 64 of the Act, was fully operative when 
the applications under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to examine - respondent No.I 
were filed by the prosecution before the Sessions Judge. The refusal of the 
said applications by the Sessions Judge in fact would result in the withdrawal H 
600 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A of the immunity granted to respondent No. l under section 64 since the 
immunity had been granted to respondent No. I subject to the condition that 
evidence would be tendered by him in the pending cases. Sessions Judge 
could not sit in appeal over the decision of the NCB more so when no one 
had challenged the order under Section 64 before him. (613-GJ 
B 
1.3. The ob

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