STATE OF HARYANA versus SURESH

Citation: [2007] 7 S.C.R. 961 · Decided: 05-06-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

,} 
I 
I 
/ 
ST A TE OF HARY ANA 
A 
v. 
SURESH 
JUNE 5, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND D. K. JAIN, JJ.] 
B 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: 
s. 50-Scope and ambit of-"Search any person "-Meaning of-Held: 
A bag, brief case or any such container etc. can, under no circumstances be C 
treated as body of a human being-Therefore, these article cannot be included 
within the ambit of the person occurring in s. 50-Interpretation of Statutes. 
Interpretation of Statutes : 
Literal interpretation-Onus of showing that the words do not mean D 
what they scy lies heavily on the party who alleges it-Narcotic Drugs and 
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985-ss. 50 rlw s. 18. 
Words and Phrases: 
'Person' and occurring in s.50 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic E 
Substances Act, 1985---Connotation of 
Respondent was convicted by the trial court of an offence punishable 
u/s. 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, on the 
case of the prosecution that a plastic bag containing opium was recovered 
from his attache' case which was searched by the patrolling party. On appeal 
by the accused, the High Court directed his acquittal on the ground that there 
was non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of s.50 of the Act. 
F 
In the instant appeal filed by the State, it was contended for the appellant 
that the High Court failed to take note of the decisions of the Supreme Court G 
to the effect that s. 50 of the Act relates only to a personal search and not of 
bags or containers carried by the accused. 
On the question: what is the meaning of the words "search any person" 
961 
H 
962 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007) 7 S.C.R. 
A occurring in s.50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 
1985. 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the High Court, the 
Court 
B 
HELD: 1.1. A bag, briefcase or any such article or container, etc. can, 
under no circumstances, be treated as body of human being. They are given 
a separate name and are identifiable as such. They cannot even remotely be 
treated to be part of the body of a human being. Therefore, it is not possible 
to include these articles within the ambit of the word "person" occurring in 
c 
Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 
!Para 14) [966-C, D, El 
State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172, followed. 
State of H.P. v. Pawan Kumar, [2005) 4 SCC 350, relied on. 
·o 
1.2. One of the basic principles of interpretation of Statutes is to 
construe them according to plain, literal and grammatical meaning of the 
words. If that is contrary to, or inconsistent with, any express intention or 
declared purpose of the Statute, or if it would involve any absurdity, repugnancy 
or inconsistency, the grammatical sense must then be modified, extended or 
E abridged, so far as to avoid such an inconvenience, but no further. The onus 
of showing that the words do not mean what they say lies heavily on the party 
who alleges it. [Para 12) [965-E, Fl 
Jugalkishore Sarafv. Raw Cotton Co. ltd., AIR (1955) SC 376, relied 
on. 
F 
Craies on Statute law, Seventh Ed. Page 83-85; Principles of Statutory 
Interpretation by Justice G. P. Singh, referred to. 
1.3. The acquittal, as directed by the High Court, is, therefore, clearly 
unsustainable. However, other points were urged in support of the appeal 
G before the High Court, but it allowed the appeal only on the ground of non-
compliance of Section 50 of the Act. It did not examine the other grounds of 
challenge. The High Court would hear the appeal afresh on grounds other 
than that of alleged non-compliance with Section 50 of the Act, which, has no 
application to the facts of the case. [Para 181 [968-A, BJ 
H 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 248 of 
.... 
·.o;: 
_, 
( 
.,___ 
STATEOFHARYANA v. SURESH[PASAYAT_J.) 
963 
~ 
A 
200L 
) 
From the Judgiuent & Order dated 14.10.1999 of the High Court of 
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 263-SB of 1988. 
., 
Roopansh Purohit, Rajeev Gaur 'Naseem', T.V. George for the Appellant.' 
B 
Debasis Mishra for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
~ 
DR. ARlJIT PASA Y AT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment 
of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing the c 
Criminal Appeal filed by the respondent, who was found guilty of offence 
punishable under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic 
Subs
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.