MOHAN LAL versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [2015] 5 S.C.R. 435 · Decided: 17-04-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 5 S.C.R. 435 
MOHAN LAL 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
(Criminal Appeal No.1393of2010) 
APRIL 17, 2015 
[DIPAK MISRA ANDS.A. BOBDE, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, C 
1985- ss. 18, 35, 42, 43 and 57 - Prosecution uls. 18 rlw. ss. 
457 and 380 of Penal Code -
For theft of opium and 
possession thereof - Recovery of the contraband at the 
instance of the accused from a public place where he had 0 
concealed the same - Conviction by courts below - On 
appeal, pleas of accused that the Act was not applicable since 
the offence was committed before enforcement thereof; that 
conviction under the Act would tantamount to retrospective 
operation which is against Art. 20(1) of the Constitution; that E 
conviction is vitiated for non-compliance of ss. 42(2) and 57; 
that disclosure statement of the accused not admissible since 
it was made while the accused was in police custody in 
connection with another case; and that there was delay in 
sending the seized articles for chemical examination - Held: F 
The Act is applicable in the present case because, the 
accused remained in possession of the contraband 
substance even when the Act came into force - Thus was 
rightly convicted uls. 18 - Therefore, it cannot be said that G 
acts of possession was made punishable with retrospective 
affect, hence violation of Art. 20(1) would not arise - In the 
present case, since the contraband substance was recovered 
from a public place, s. 43 would be applicable and not s. 
42(2)- Evidence of the case show that there was substantial H 
435 
436 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 5 S.C.R. 
A compliance of s. 57 - The recovery of the contraband articles 
has been proved to the hilt and the fact that recovery 
statement was made while in police custody in respect of 
another case, would not affect the admissibility of the 
statement - On the facts of the case, delay in sending the 
B seized articles for chemical examination would not affect the 
prosecution case - Conviction upheld - Penal Code, 1860 
-ss. 457 and 380- Constitution oflndia, 1950-Art. 20(1). 
Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 27 - Scope of- Held: s. 27 
C does not restrict that the accused must have been arrested 
in connection with the same offence. 
Constitution of India, 1950-Art. 20(1) -Applicability 
of- Discussed. 
D 
Words and Phrases - 'Possession' - Meaning of, in 
E 
the context of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances 
Act, 1881. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 When one conceives of possession, it 
appears in the strict sense that the concept of 
possession is basically connected to "actus of physical 
control and custody". Attributing this meaning in the 
F strict sense would be understanding the factum of 
possession in a narrow sense. With the passage of time 
there has been a gradual widening of the concept and 
the quintessential meaning of the word possession. The 
classical theory of English law on the term "possession" 
G is fundamentally dominated by Savigny-ian "corpus" 
and "animus" doctrine. Distinction has also been made 
in "possession in fact" and "possession in law" and 
sometimes between "corporeal possession" and 
"possession of right" which is called "incorporeal 
H possession". Thus, there is a degree of flexibility in the 
MOHAN LAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
437 
use of the said term and that is why the word possession A 
can be usefully defined and understood with reference 
to the contextual purpose for the said expression. The 
word possession may have one meaning in one 
connection and another meaning in another. The term 
"possession" consists of two elements. First, it refers B 
to the corpus or the physical control and the second, it 
refers to the animus or intent which has reference to 
exercise of the said control. [Paras 8 and 9] [449-G-H; 
450-A-D] 
c 
1.2 The courts have refrained from adopting a 
doctrinaire approach towards defining possession. A 
functional and flexible approach in defining and 
understanding the possession as a concept is 0 
acceptable and thereby emphasis has been laid on 
different possessory rights according to the commands 
and justice of the social policy. Thus, the word 
"possession" in the context of any enactment would 
depend upon the object and purpose of the enactment E 
and an appropriate meaning has to be assigned to the 
word to effectuate the said object. [Para 11] [453-H; 454-
A-B] 
1.3 In the context of Section 18 of the NDPS Act, it F 
would have a reference to 

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