LexMEGH SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B MEGH SINGH v. ST A TE OF PUNJAB SEPTEMBER 15, 2003 [DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985-Sections 15, 20, 34, 50 and 54-Appellant apprehended by police party as he was seen sitting on gunny bags containing contraband articles-Trial Court convicted C and sentenced the appellant but acquitted the other co-accused giving him benefit of doubt-High Court upheld conviction and sentence holding that conscious possession is to be presumed unless the contrary is proved-On appeal Held, conscious possession and not mere custody without awareness of the nature of possession necessary-Once possession is established the D person who claims that it was not a conscious possession has to establish it because the coming in possession is within his special knowledge-Not only possession but conscious possession has been established and the contrary has not been shown-Hence, conviction and sentence upheld. Section 50-Applicability--Held, only applicable in case of personal E search of a person and does not extend to search of a vehicle or a container or a bag, or premises-Non compliance of provisions immaterial in the present case as there was no personal search. Practice and Procedure-Similarity in criminal cases-One addi- F tional or different fact may differentiate between conclusions in two cases or two accused in the same case-Entire aspect may be altered by a single significant detail, which is more pronounced in criminal cases as adjudi- cation is fact based. Words and Phrases-"Conscious Possession"-Meaning in the con- G text of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. A police party on patrol duty apprehended three persons sitting on gunny bags containing poppy husk. The appellant was arrested on the spot and the others were arrested on later dates. Trial Court H convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 15 of the Narcotic 720 ... "' ' MEGH SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 721 Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; however, it acquitted A others giving them benefit of doubt. High Court upheld the conviction and sentence on appeal. It discarded the plea that the appellant was arrested on an earlier date and that there was no conscious possession of the contraband articles. Section 50 of the Act was also held inapplicable because there was no personal search of the appellant. B Hence this appeal. Appellant contended that as conscious possession has not been proved; that conviction cannot stand on a different footing from the co-accused who have been acquitted; and that there was non-compli- ance of the requirements of Section 50 of the Act. C Respondent contended that by application of the logic behind Section 54 of the Act, when physical possession is established, there is presumption of conscious possession; that mere acquittal of co-accused p!.!rsons cannot be a factor to hold the appellant innocent; and that as there was no personal search Section 50 of the Act has no application. D Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1. Unless the possession was coupled with requisite mental element, i.e. conscious possession and not mere custody without E awareness of the nature of possession, Section 20 of the Nucotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, is not attracted. [725-D] 2. The expression "possession" is a polymorphous term, which assumes different colours in different contexts and may carry different meanings in contextually different backgrounds. Possession may be F physical or constructive. The person to whom physical possession is given may hold it subject to the power or control of some other person. The word "possession" means the legal right to possession. [725-E, 725-G, HJ Superintendent & Remembrancer of legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja & Ors., A.I.R. (1980) SC 52 and Gunwantlal v. The State of MP., A.I.R (1972) SC 1756, relied on. Avtar Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, (2002] 7 SCC 419, distin- G guished. H 722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A Health v. Drown, (1972) 2 All. ER 561 (ML); Sullivan v. Earl of Caitness, [1976) 1 All. ER 844 (QBD), referred to. 3.1. The word "conscious" means awareness about a particular fact. It is a state of mind, which is deliberate or intended. Once possession B is established the person who claims that it was not a conscious possession has to establish it because the coming in possession is within h
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.