KAUR SAIN versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1974] 2 S.C.R. 393 · Decided: 23-11-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

B 
c 
» 
E 
F 
JI 
KAUR SAIN 
v. 
THE STATE OF PUNJAB 
November 23, 1973 
[M. H. BEG AND Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.] 
393 
Opium Act, s. 9 read withs. 54 Cr. P.C.~Appellant made a statement from 
lock-up tMt he possessed opium in his house. He was not arrested earlier for 
any such charge-Whether it was a made up story by the pi'osecu.tiOn in the cir-
cumstances of the case. 
The Judicial Magistrate convicted the appellant under s. 9 of the Opium Act 
for being in pouession Of over 1 Kg. of opium without a lice.nee and sentenced 
him for 8 months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 /-. The order of conviction 
and sentence was confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge and in .revision by 
the High Court. 
Accofding to the prosecution, the appellant was arrested under s. 54 Cr.P.C. 
and while he was in the police lock-up, he was alleged to have J;Dade a statement 
that be bad kept a tin of opium in bis house. Accordingly, he was taken to bis 
-house where the accused is alleged to have handed over a tin of opium to the 
-police. 
Before they were arrested, the appellant and another made an application 
be!oro the Sarpanch of the village Panchayat stating that they were apprehensive 
that they would be involved in some false charge or the other on account of their 
enmity with certain persons. 
Three courts had, however, held concurrenUy that the charge levelled against 
the accusecf stands clearly e11tablished. 
All the courts below had rejected the 
defence evidence summarily. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELJj : (i) It is comnion ground that on June 9, 1968, the appellant waa in 
the lock-up. Suddenly; the appellant made a disclooure that he had concealed a 
large quantity of opium in bis house. The appellant was not arrested on the 
charge or on suspicion that he was in possession of contraband opium. After 
the statement made by the appellant Was recorded in the police station, no cue 
was registered apinst him before bis house was searched. Secondly, without tat. 
ins any help from any respectable person from the locality, the constable, got 
hold of two penons, to accompany the police party who were involved in crimi-
nal chargea earlier. Further an uncle of one of .the witnesses was a rival c;andl· 
date apinst the appellanf in .the Municipal eleetions. Their ~videtice also was · 
contradictory. The High Court however, unhesitatingly, believed their evidence. 
The High Court brushed aside the defence witness as a procured witnesses. 
There wu no reference at all to the contradiction in the evidence of the two 
pJnchas in connection· with the authentitjty of the search. (395B-O] 
(ii) The l'CSJ>Oll()ent roliod heavily on Ex. P.A., the statement alleged to have 
been made by the ~Dant .at the palice station, which bore bis signature. In 
view of the infirmities in the evidence of the prosecution, no reliance can be 
nlaced on the circumstances that the statement hem the appellant's signature; 
besidea in bis examination under s. 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant was not asked by 
. the_ ~f~strate to offer anv eXJ>lanation in regard to the statement 
(39'60~ 
397AJ 
In 'View of the exceptionil circumstances of the case, the appeal was allowed. 
l397Cl 
CRIMIN',AL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 
1970. 
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 
12th February, 1970 of the Punjab and Hliryana Jngh Court at Chandi-
. garb lil Criminal Revision No. 66 of 1969. 
394 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1974 J 2 s.c.K. 
Nuruddin Ahmad and B. P. Singh, for the appellant. 
Harbans Singh and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
CHANDRACHUD, J. 
The learned Judicial 
Magistrate, 1st Class, 
Sunam convicted the appellant under section 9 of the Opium Act for 
being in possession of over 1 kg. of opium without a licence and 
sentenced him !O suffer rigorous imprisonment for 8 months and to 
pay a fine of Rs. 5001-. 
The order of conviction and sentenee was 
confirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur, and in 
revision by the Higb Court of Punjab & Haryana. This . appeal by 
special leave is directed against the judgment of the Higb Court. 
According to the prosecution, the appellant was arrested on June 
9, 1968 U!lder section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. While 
he was in the police loc.k-up, he is alleged to have 'I!lade a statement 
that he had kept a tin containing opium in his houle. Gurdev Singh, 
the Station House Officer of the Lehra Police st

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