STATE OF HARYANA versus JARNAIL SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 864 · Decided: 29-04-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
STATE OF HARYANA 
v. 
JARNAIL SINGH AND ORS. 
APRIL 29, 2004 
[N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND B.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985-Sections 50 
and 42-Recovery of contraband article on search of vehicle at public place, 
C Superintendent of Police being the member of search party-Application of 
Sections 50 and 42--Compliance of the mandatory requirement-Held: Jn 
such factual situation, Section 50 not applicable since contraband recovered 
on search of vehicle in public place and not personal search-A/so Section 
42 not applicable since there was no requirement of the officer conducting 
search to record grounds of his belief as contemplated by proviso to Section 
D 42-Moreover Superintendent of Police being member of search party and 
exercising his authority, Section 42 not attracted. 
According to the prosecution, Superintendent of Police along with other 
members of the force while checking vehicles moving on the high way, 
intercepted a tanker. Respondent-persons sitting in the cabin of the tanker 
E -~re interroga~ed, tanker was searched and 73 gunny bags containing 18 
kg. poppy husk each, were found. Samples were sealed and all necessary steps 
were taken under the NDPS Act and Rule>. Respondents were put up for triaf 
and were convicted and sentenced by trial court under section 15 of the 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. However, High Court 
F acquitted them for non-compliance with the requirements of Sections 42 and 
50 of the Act. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant State contended that the High Court erred in applying the 
provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act to the facts and 
circumstances of the case since ·the search was made on a highway-a public 
G place and not in a private enclosed place, thus Section 42 was not applicable; 
and Section 50 did not apply because the contraband article was not recovered 
on personal search of the accused, but on search cf the vehicle. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
H 
864 
STATE OF HARYANA v. JARNAIL SINGH [SINGH. J.] 
865 
HELD: In the instant case there is no dispute that the tanker was moving ~ 
on the public highway when it was stopped and searched. On facts, Section 50 
of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, was not 
applicable since the contraband was recovered on search of a vehicle and there 
was no personal search involved. Further, there was no prior information 
regarding the contraband being carried in a vehicle, and the recovery was 
the result of checking of the vehicle in normal course. The requirement of B 
the officer conducting the search to record the grounds of his belief as 
contemplated by the proviso to Section 42 was also not required to be complied 
with since the recovery was made at a public place and was, therefore, governed 
by Section 43 which did not lay down any such requirement. Moreover, since 
the Superintendent of Police was a member of the search party and was C 
exercising his authority under Section 41, the proviso to Section 42 was not 
attracted. Therefore, the Order of High Court being clearly erroneous, is set 
aside and respondents are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 
ten years, each under Section 15 of the NDPS Act and to pay fine of Rs 
1,00,000 and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two years. 
(869-E-Hl D 
State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC 172; Kalema Tumba v. 
State of Maharashtra and anr., (1999) 8 SCC 257; Gurbax Singh v. State of 
Haryana, (2001) 3 SCC 28; Madan Lal v. State of H.P., (2003) 7 SCC 465; 
Birakishore Kar v. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 9 SCC 541; Saikou Jabbi v. E 
State of Maharashtra, (2004) 2 SCC 186 and M Prabhula/ v. Assistant 
Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, (2003) 8 SCC 449, referred 
to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 918 of 
1998. 
From the Judgement and Order dated 29.8.97 of the Punjab and Haryana 
High Court in Cr!. A. No. 146-SB of 1996. 
D.P. Singh, V.K. Garg, Ms. Avneet Toor and Manu Shanna for the 
Appellant. 
R.K. Talwar, Amit Talwar and Y.P. Dhingra for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F 
G 
B.P. SINGH, J. The State of Haryana has preferred this appeal by 
special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and H 
866 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A Haryana at Chandigarh dated August 29, 1997 in Criminal Appeal No.146-SB/ 
96 whereby the High Court
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.