LexSTATE OF H.P. versus SUNIL KUMAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 3 S.C.R. 613 STATE OF H.P. v. SUNIL KUMAR (Criminal Appeal No. 1101 of 2005) MARCH 5, 2014 [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI AND MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.] NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC A B SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985. C s. 50 and s. 20 - 'Chance recovery' - Compliance of s. 50 - Police in routine traffic check for without ticket passengers, detected accused-appellant in possession of charas - Held: It was plainly a chance recovery of charas - It was not 0 necessary for police officers to comply with provisions of s. 50 -- Mere suspicion, even if it is 'positive suspicion' or grave suspicion cannot be equated with 'reason to believe' -- Decision of trial court convicting the accused of an offence ul s 20 of the Act, upheld. WORDS AND PHRASES: Expressions 'chance recovery', 'reason to believe' - Connotation of in the context of Narcotic Drugs and E Psychotropic Substances Act. F The respondent was prosecuted for an offense punishable u/s 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The prosecution case was that, while checking a bus, in usual 'traffic check' for ticket less passengers etc., the respondent was found concealing G something under his clothes which turned to be 2.300 Kg of charas. The trial court held that in the circumstances provisions of s. 42 of the Act relating to search and 613 j H 614 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 3 S.C.R. A seizure were not applicable and convicted and sentenced the respondent to imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 Lakh. However, the High Court held that the recovery of charas was not a chance recovery and it attracted the provisions of s. 50 of the act B and because of non-compliance thereof the conviction and the sentence were not justified. In the instant appeal filed by the state, the question for consideration before the Court was: whether the C accidental or chance recovery of narcotic drugs during a personal or body search would attract the provisions of s.50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotrooic Substances Act, 1985. D Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 In view of the Constitution Bench decision in Baldev Singh the personal search of the accused· appellant resulting in the recovery of contraband did not violate s. 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic E Substances Act, 1985. [para 11] [619-B] State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh 1999 (3) SCR 977= (1999) 6 SCC 172; State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh 1994 (2) SCR 208 = (1994) 3 SCC 299 - referred to. F 1.2 The expression 'chance recovery' has not been defined anywhere and its plain and simple meaning seems to be a recovery made by chance or by accident or unexpectedly, as in the instant case, where the recovery of contraband may not have been unexpected, G but the recovery of charas certainly was unexpected notwithstanding the submission that drugs are easily available in the area. The police officers had no reason to believe that the accused was carrying any drugs. It was plainly a chance or accidental or unexpected H recovery of charas • the accused could well have been STATE OF H.P. v. SUNIL KUMAR 615 carrying any other contraband such as, smuggled gold, A stolen property or an illegal firearm or even some other drug. [para 14, 16] [620-C, G-H; 621-A-B] 1.3 Mere suspicion, even if it is 'positive suspicion' or grave suspicion cannot be equated with 'reason to beli'eve'. These are two completely different concepts. It 8 is this positive suspicion, and not any reason to believe, that led to the chance recovery of charas from the person of the accused. The view of the High Court that since the police officers had a positive suspicion that the accused was carrying some contraband, therefore, it could be said C or assumed that they had reason to believe or prior information that he was carrying charas or some other narcotic substance and so, before his personal or body search was conducted, the provisions of s.50 of the Act ought to have been complied with, cannot be sustained. D The recovery of charas on personal search of the accused was clearly a chance recovery and, in view of Baldev Singh, it was not necessary for the police officers to comply with the provisions of s. 50 of the Act. [para 19 and 21] [621-F-G; 622-B-D] E Joti Parshad v. State of Haryana, 1993 Supp (2) SCC 497; and Sheo Nath Singh v. Appellate Assistant CIT (1972) 3 sec 234 - relied on. Mohinder Kumar v. State, Panaji Goa (1998) 8
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.