STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH versus PAWAN KUMAR

Citation: [2005] 3 S.C.R. 417 · Decided: 08-04-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-· 
ST A TE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH 
v. 
PAWAN KUMAR 
APRIL 8, 2005 
[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., G.P. MATHUR AND 
P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985-Se9tion 50-
Applicability of-Held: The provision is applicable only in the case of personal C 
search of the accused and not of any bag, briefcase, article or container; etc., 
being carried by him-Contra interpretation would lead to many practical 
difficulties-A statute should be so interpreted as to avoid unworkable or 
impracticable results. 
Interpretation of Statutes-Literal construction-Held: Statutes should D 
be construed according to plain, literal and grammatical meaning of the 
words-Onus of showing that the words do not mean what they say lies 
heavily on the party who alleges it. 
· 
Words and Phrases : 
"Search of person" and "person "-Meaning of -In context to Section E 
S.50(/) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 
"lnextricable"-Meaning of 
The question for consideration in the present appeals is as to whether 
the safeguards provided by Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and F 
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the NDPS Act) regarding search of 
any "person" would also apply to any bag, briefcase or any such article 
or container etc., which is being carried by him. 
Allowing the appeals and remitting back the same to High Court, 
the Court 
HELD : 1. The provisions of Section 50 will come into play only in 
the case of personal search of the accused and not of some baggage like a 
bag, article or container, etc. which he may be carrying. (428-G) 
State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC 172, followed. 
417 
G 
H 
418 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Namdi Francis Nwazor v. Union of India and Anr., 11998) 8 SCC 534 
and Beckodan Abdul Rahiman v. State of Kera/a, JT (2002) 3 Cri. L.J. 2529 
SC, distinguished 
Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 1200012SCC513; 
Madan Lal v. State of H.P., 12003) 7 SCC 465; Gurbax Singh v, State of 
B Haryana, {2001) 3 SCC 28; State of Punjab v. Makhan Singh, [2004) 3 sec 
453; Kanhaiya Lal v. State of MP., [2000) 10 SCC 380; Birakishore Kar v. 
. 
I 
, 
c 
State ofOrissa, [2000) 9 SCC 541; Krishna Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan, 
12004) 2 SCC 608; Sarjudas v. State of Gujarat, [1999] 8 SCC 508 and 
Saikou Jabbi v. State of Maharahstra~ JT (2003) 9 SC 609, referred to. 
• 2.1. 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 
D inodified, extended or 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 ~n the party who alleges it. He must advance 
something which clearly shows that the grammatical construction would 
be repugnant to the intention of the Act or le.ad to some manifest absurdity. 
E 
[424-E, F] 
· Jugalkishore Sarafv. Mis Raw Cotton Co. Ltd., AIR (1955) SC 376, 
relied on. 
Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh; Craies on 
F Statute Law, Seventh ed. pages 83-85; Chambers's Dictionary; Webster's 
Third New International Dictiona1y; Black's Law Dictionary and Law Lexicon 
by P. Ramanatha Aiyar, referred to. 
2.2. Having regard to the scheme of the NDPS Act and the context 
in which the word "person" has been used in the Section it naturally means 
G a human being or a living individual unit and not an artificial person. The 
word has to be understood in a broad commonsense manner and, 
therefore, not a naked or nude body of a human being· but the manner in 
which a normal human being will move about in a civilized society. 
Therefore,. the word "person" would mean a human bting with 
H appropriate coverings and cloth.ings and also footwear. [426-B-C-E) 
---... 
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. PAW AN KUMAR 
419 
3. A bag, briefcase or any such article or container, etc. can, under A 
no circumstances, be treated as body of a human being. It is not possible 
to include these articles within the ambit of the word "person" occurring 
in Section 50 of the Act. [426-F-Hl 
4. An incriminating article can be kept concealed in the body or 
clothings or.coverings in different manner or in the footwear. While B 
making a s

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