LexSTATE OF HARYANA versus MAI RAM SON OF MAM CHAND
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 11 S.C.R. 586 A STATE OF HARYANA ii v. MAI RAM SON OF MAM CHAND (Criminal Appeal No.211 of 2001) B JULY 31, 2008 [DR. ARIJI! PASAYAT AND DR. MU_l-(UNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] ): Narcotic prugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: c ss. 17 and 50. Search - On basis of suspicion - Held: Law does not require recording of elaborate reasons for entertaining suspi- cion about an accused. D Seizure - Of contraband article - Only police officials, PWs 1 and 2 examined as witnesses - High Court holding that the prosecution version became vulnerable for non-ex- amination of persons who were not official witnesses - Cor- ~~ rectness of - Held: -Not correct, since no material brought on E record by defence to discredit the evidence of official witnesses and further PWs 1 and 2 categorically stated that no other person was willing to depose as witness. Seizure - Of contraband article - After search of bag car- ried by accused - High Court holding that there was violation F of the provisions of s. 50 - Correctness of - Held: Not correct - s. 50 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 - Language of s. 50 is implicitly clear that the search has to be in relation to a person as contrasted to search G of premises, vehicles or articles - Hence, finding of High Court regarding non-compliance of s. 50 is without substance. According to the prosecution, when Respondent alighted from a train, police officials stopped him at the 'f railway station itself on basis of suspicion and after H 586 STATE OF HARYANA v. MAI RAM SON OF 587 MAM CHAND search, seized about 1.5 kgs of contraband article (opium) A from the bag carried by Respondent. Trial Court found the Respondent guilty under s.17 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for 10 years. On appeal, High Court difected acquittal of the Re- B spondent on the ground that there was violation of the provisions of s.50 of the Act; that elaborate reasons were not recorded about the suspicion regarding Respondent being in possession of opium; that though the recovery was purportedly effected at the railway station and many C independent witnesses would have been available, but only two police officials PW-1 and PW-2 were examined and further that there was no evidence to show that the seal of the samples collected were intact. In appeal to this Court, the appellant-State contended D that s.50 of the Act has no application because there was no question of personal search and the search was of the bag carried by the accused; that there was no require- ment in law to record the reasons for the suspicion; that merely because police officials were examined as wit- E nesses, tha~ cannot be a ground to suspect the prosecu- tion version and finally that there was not even a sugges- tion during the examination of the witnesses that the seals were not intact and therefore, the High Court's reasoning and conclusions are not sustainable. F Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD:1.There is nothing in law that elaborate rea- sons for entertaining a suspicion about an accused, car- rying contraband articles should be recorded. The High G Court was clearly in error in holding that the reason for the suspicion was not recorded. (Para 8] [591 G-H] 2. No material was brought on record by the defence to discredit the evidence of the official witnesses. The ul- H 588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R. A timate question is whether the evidence of the official wit- ness suffers from any infirmity. In the instant case noth- ing of the nature could be pointed out. Further PWs 1 and 2 categorically stated that no other person was willing to depose as witness. Therefore, the High Court was clearly 8 in error in holding that the prosecution version became vulnerable for non-examination of persons who were not official witnesses. [Para 8J [592 A-BJ 3. The Trial Court found that the seals were intact as deposed by the official witnesses. The High Court came c to an abrupt conclusion that there was no evidence to show that the seals were intact. As rightly submitted by the State no such question was raised and on the con- trary the Trial Court found that the evidence of official wit- nesses clearly establish that the seals were intact. [Paras D 9, 1 OJ [592 C-DJ 4. So far as applicabilit
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.