STATE OF HARYANA versus RANBIR @ RANA

Citation: [2006] 3 S.C.R. 864 · Decided: 05-04-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF HARYANA 
RANBIR @ RANA 
APRIL 5, 2006 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985-Section 50--
Applicability of-Held, the requirement under the provision would be 
C upp/icable only in a case of personal search of the accused and not in 
respect of baggage carried by the accused. 
'Obiter dicta' and' Ratio decidende' --Distinction between. 
Words and Phrases: 
D 
'Obiter dicta' and 'decision'--1Heaning of 
Respondent-accused was taken into custody by a police party on 
suspicion that the plastic bag which he was holding, contained contraband 
article. The plastic bag was searched in the presence of Dy. S.P. and a 'pipi' 
E containing 'charas' was fonud. Trial court held the accused guilty and 
convicted him under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic 
Substances Act, 1985. High Court allowed the appeal of the accused on the 
ground of non compliance of mandatory provision of Section 50 of the Act. 
In appeal to this Court respondent-accused contended that in Nandi 
F Francis Nwazor case it was held that incriminating article found in the 
handbag carried by a person, would still be search of a person attracting 
mandatory compliance of Section 50 of the Act; and that in Pawan Kumar's 
case it was "\\rongly stated that the above mentioned observations in Nandi 
Francis Nwazor case were obiter dicta. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
H 
HELD : I Section 50 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances 
Act, 1985 would be applicable only in a case of personal search of the accused 
and not wh1:n it is made in respect of some baggage like a bag, article or 
864 
-
--
--· 
STA TE OF HARY ANA v. RANBIR@RANA [S.B. SINHA, J.] 
865 
container etc. which the accused at the relevant time was carrying. (868-Al A 
State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, 119991 6 SCC 172, followed. 
Himachal Pradesh etc. v. Pawan Kimar, (2005) 4 SCC 250, relied on. 
Namdi Francis Nwazor v. Union of India and Anr., (199818SCC,534 B 
referred to. 
2.1. The observations made in Nandi Francis Nwazor is merely an obiter 
and does not constitute a ratio decidendi. The three-judge Bench of this Court 
in Pawan Kumar therefore, correctly distinguished the same. (870-H) 
2.2. A decision is an authority for what it decides and not what can 
logically be deduced therefrom. The distinction between a dicta and obiter is 
well known. Obiter dicta is more or less presumably unnecessary to the 
decision. It may be an expression of a view point or sentiments which has no 
binding effect. The statements which are not part of the ratio decidendi 
constitute obiter dicta and are not authoritative. (869-G-H; 870-A( 
Additional District Magistrate Jabalpur etc. v. Shivakant Shukla etc., 
(1976] 2 SCC 521; Division Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty and Anr .. 
' 
(2003] 7 SCC 197 and Director ofSe1tlements, A.P. and Ors. v. MR. Apparao 
and Anr., (20021 4 SCC 638, relied on. 
Behrens v. Pertraman Mi/fs, (1957) 2 QB 25, referred to. 
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 650 of 
1999. 
c 
D 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.12.1997 of the High Court of F 
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Cr!. No. 715/96. 
Rajeev Gaur 'Naseem' and T.V. George for the Appellant 
Rishi Malhotra and Prem Malhotra for Kishan Datta for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. The State of Haryana is in appeal before us from a 
judgment and order dated 19.08.1998 of the High Court of Punjab and 
Haryana in Criminal Appeal No.715of1996 allowing the appeal preferred by 
G 
H 
866 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006) 3 S.C.R. 
A the respondent herein from a judgment of conviction and sentence dated 
05.08.1996 passed by the learned Additional and Sessions Judge in Sessions 
Case No.37 and Sessions Trial No.118 of 1994 under Sections 20 of the 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short 'the Act'). 
The prosecution case against the respondent was as under : . 
B 
On 15.11.1993 when a police party, comprising of Sub-Inspector Dunger 
Singh, Constable Randhir Singh, Head Constable Omkar, Constable Urned 
Singh and Head Constable Om Prakash, were proceeding from Bamla to CIA 
staff Bhiwani and reached the point on Rohtak-Bhiwani Road near Sanjeev 
M. College, the respondent was seen coming from the opposite direction, i.e., 
C from the side of Bhiwani on foot, holding a plastic bag of white colour. 
Having seen them, the respondent allegedly turned towards his left s

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