MADAN LAL AND ANR. versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 716 · Decided: 19-08-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MADAN LAL AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH 
AUGUST 19, 2003. 
B 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYA T, JJ.] 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: 
Section 42-Compliance of-Plea that no proof that information 
C regarding transportation of narcotic drugs transmitted to superior authority--
Held: On facts, material establishing that information sent without delay to 
superior officer-Thus provision of Section 42(2) complied with. 
Section 50-Scope and applicability of-Held: Section 50 is applicable 
in case of personal search of person and not search of vehicle or container 
D or bag or premises. 
Section 20-Possession of narcotic drug-Plea that sample sent for 
analysis varied in weight and there was tampering-Held: when variation 
in weight is minimal and almost ignorable, there cannot be any tampering. 
E 
Sections 20, 35 and 54-Jntercepiion of car carrying accused-Seizure 
of narcotic drug-Conscious possession of narcotic drug-Plea to the 
contrary-Held: Evidence establishing that accused in conscious possession 
of contraband articles-Presumption available by application of logic flowing 
from Sections 35 and 54 applicable to accused-Hence, accused rightly 
F convicted by courts below. 
G 
H 
Words and Phrases: 
"Possession"-Meaning of 
"Conscious "-Meaning of 
An Assistant Superintendent of Police received a secret telephonic 
message that charas was being transported in a car. Information was recorded 
and was tr.msmitted to the Superintendent of Police. Raiding party intercepted 
the car carrying appellant-accused persons. Accused M was driving a car 
and the remaining accused were sitting therein. Charas was seized from the 
716 
MADAN LAL v. ST A TE OF H.P. 
717 
car. Samples were sent to the Police station. FIR was registered. Chemical A 
examiner analyzed the samples and filed a report that the samples were of 
charas. Thereafter, chargesheet was framed and the accused were put on trial. 
Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused under Sectio11 20 of the 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Appellants-accused 
filed appeals which were dismissed. Hence the present appeals. SLP of accused 
G was dismissed. 
B 
Appellants-accused contended that there was no material to show that 
the information which was required to be transmitted to the superior authority 
was so done; that the finding that there was no requirement to comply with 
the requirement of Section 50 when a vehicle has been searched is not 
correct; that the officials had tampered with the samples as the weight of the C 
sample was less than what was indicated; that there was no material to prove 
that there was any conscious possession of the contraband articles; that M 
was only the driver of the vehicle and was not supposed to know what the other 
occupants were bringing; and that since the accused whose SLP has been 
dismissed, admitted that the seized charas belonged to him, other accused D 
appellants should not have been convicted. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The judgments of trial Court and the High Court that the 
appellants-accused committed offence punishable under Section 20 of the E 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 suffer from no 
infirmity to warrant interference. (719-E; 726-C] 
2.1. The materials clearly establish that the information about 
transportation of charas was sent without delay to the immediate superior 
officer by the Assistant Superintendent of Police. Thus, the submission F 
regarding non-compliance of provisions of Section 42 of the Act is without 
substance. (723-H; 724-A] 
2.2. A bare perusal of Section 50 of the Act shows that it only applies 
in case of personal search of a person. It does not extend to search of a vehicle 
or a container or a bag, or premises. The language of Section 50 is implicitly G 
clear that the search has to be in relation to a person as contrasted to search 
of premises, vehicles or articles. Thus, the submission regarding non-
compliance of Section 50 of the Act is without any substance. (724-B, CJ 
Kalema Tumba v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., JT [1999) (8) SC 293; H 
718 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A The State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, JT (1999) 4 SC 595 and Gurbax Singh 
v. State of Haryana, 12001) 3 SCC 28, relied on. 
2.3. With regard to the submission that there was reduction in weight 
of the samples sent for analysis and there was tampering, trial Court recorded 
the reaso

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