STATE OF PUNJAB versus BALWANT RAI

Citation: [2005] 2 S.C.R. 408 · Decided: 24-02-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
v. 
BALWANT RAI 
"I 
FEBRUARY 24, 2005 
[B.P. SINGH AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic. Substances Act, 1985--Sections 15 
and 50-Accused prosecuted for possessing 15 bags of poppyhusk-Accused 
C found sitting on the bags-Search of bags by Police-Plea of false implication 
by accused-Negatived-Conviction by Trial Court-Acquittal by High Court 
for non-compliance of Section 50-0n appeal, held: Convict.ion justifled-:-
Section 50 not attracted·in the case, as search of bags ~ould no/ amount-to 
search of the person of.the accused-Also in the facts and circumstances of 
the case, false implication of accused not acceptable. 
D 
PW-3 and PW-1, the police officials, were on patrol duty. PW-3 got 
a secret information that at a particular place poppyhusk was unloaded 
on previous night and the respondent-accused was waiting there for 
customers. The party and Superintendent of Police (PW-2) reached the 
place, where they found 15 bags on which respondent was sitting. On 
E search of the bags poppyhusk was found while on his personal search 
nothing incriminating was found. Accused in his statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. 
stated that he was falsely implicated by the police as the police officials 
were inimical towards him as High Court had imposed fine on the friend 
of PW-3 and other police officials for illegal detention of the respondent 
F on a previous occasion. Trial Court found the respondent guilty of offence 
u/s. 15 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and 
convicted and sentenced him accordingly. On appeal High Court held that 
his conviction was bad for non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act and 
hence acquitted him. 
G 
In appeal to this Court respondent-accused contended that the search 
H 
in the case would amount to personal search attracting Section SO of the 
Act and that he was falsely implicated in the case. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
408 
-, 
-
--
STATE OF PUNJAB v. BALWANT RAI [SINGH, J.) 
409 
HELD: I. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the defence of A 
the respondent, that he was falsely implicated, cannot be accepted. From 
the evidence on record and from the facts of this case, it does not appear 
to be a case of implanted evidence. The police had prior information of 
the fact that poppyhusk contained in several bags had been unloaded at 
the point where they were ultimately found. Intimation of this fact had B 
been given to the Superintendent of Police who reached the place where 
the bags were unloaded. The respondent was found present there. The 
quantity is so large that the question of implanting does not arise. No other 
explanation has been offered by the respondent. (413-B-DI 
2. In the facts and circumstance of this case, search of the bags would . C 
not amount to search of the person of the respondent. This is clearly not 
a case of personal search, and, therefore, requirements of Section 50 of 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 will not be 
attracted. The High Court was clearly in error in holding that the 
provisions of Section 50 of Act apply to a case with such facts. [412-D-El 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1240 
of 1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.2.99 of the Punjab and Haryana 
High Court at Chandigarh in Crl.A. No. 655-SB of 1997. 
R.K. Rathore, Addi. Advocate General for State, A.K. Sinha, S. 
Krishnaraj and Bimal Roy Jad for the Appellant. 
Rana Ranjit Singh (A.C) for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B.P. SINGH, J. The respondent herein was put up for trial before the 
Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur who by judgment and order dated August 
D 
E 
F 
8, 1997 found the respondent guilty of the offence under Section 15 of the 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short N.D.P.S. 
Act) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and G 
a fine of Rs. one lakh, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous 
imprisonment for 2-1/2 (two and a half) years. The respondent preferred an 
appeal before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh being 
Criminal Appeal No. 655-SB/1997. The High Court by its impugned judgment 
and order of 19th February, 1999 allowed the appeal and set aside the order H 
410 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
{2005] 2 S.C.R. 
A of conviction and sentence passed against the respondent. Th~ State <!f Punjab 
has come up in appeal before this Court ~y special leave. 

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