LexSTATE OF PUNJAB versus GURNAM KAUR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2009] 3 S.C.R. 1195 :.. STATE OF PUNJAB A v. GURNAM KAUR AND ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 939 of 2007) MARCH 6, 2009 B [S.8. SINHA, DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - ss. 18, 20 and 50 (4) - Police officials staged nakabandi - c Driver of car apprehended - On search recovery of contraband articles - Driver's case that three persons fled away- On basis of statement of driver, raid in house of said persons - Recovery of contraband articles from the box under the bed on which ladies of the house found sitting - D Conviction of ladies u!ss. 18 and 20 - Set aside by High court - Interference with - Held: Not called for - Prosecution case suffered from several infirmities - Independent witness was not examined - Personal search of ladies was conducted by male police officer which was violative of sub section (4) of s. E 50. ,\ During nakabandi, the police officials of village K apprehended GS- driver of the car. He alleged that PS, AS and HS were also there who fled away. The car was F searched and narcotics were recovered. FIR was lodged. On basis of statement of GS, police officials raided the house of PS and HS in village T and recovered large quantity of contraband articles from the box beneath the bed where respondent-ladies of the house were sitting Another FIR was lodged. PS was arrested. Respondents G were convicted and sentenced ulss. 18 and 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. However, High Court set aside the order. Hence the present appeal. 1195 H 1196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 3 S.C.R. A Dismissing the appeal, the court HELD: 1.1 Having been taken through the judgment of the High Court as also other materials on record, it is not a fit case where discretionary jurisdiction under 8 Article 136 of the Constitution of India should be exercised in interfering with the impugned judgment. [Pal'.a 12] [1201-B] 1.2. There are several infirmities in the prosecution case. Subject to just exceptions all offences are local. A C statement in regard to the possibility of contraband articles likely to be found at the residence of PS was disclosed by GS. His statement was not recorded in writing. Admittedly, PS was also arrested and in that view of the matter as to why they were not taken to their village D is beyond any comprehension. The place of occurrence of the first incident and the incident in question are situated at distance of 80 kms. whereas GS was arrested at about 7:30 p.m. on 16-06-2000. The second first information report was lodged at 4.00 p.m. and it was E recorded as 5.15 p.m. [Para 13] [1201-C, D, E] 1.3. Respondent GK is an old lady. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are her daughters-in-law. Curiously all of them were ,, found sitting on the same bed beneath whereto the F cQntraband had allegedly been kept. That by itself does not establish that all of them were in conscious possession of the narcotics. They were not even asked any question in regard thereto. Prior to lodging of the first information report, the respondents did not point out the place where the narcotics were found kept. How the G raiding party found the same has not been disclosed. The ladies in natural course were in their house. No explanation has been furnished, nor the statement of the respondent was recorded. The investigating officer-CSP PW3 was to prove as to where contraband had been kept H not the respondents. [Para 14] [1201-F, G, HJ STATE OF PUNJAB v. GURNAM KAUR AND ORS. · 1197 · - • 1.4. If by a reason of statements made by an accused A some facts have been discovered, the same would be admissible against the person who had made the statement in terms of section 27 of the Evidence Act. Prosecution did not examine any independent witness. Why independent witnesses could not be found was not B explained. [Para 15] [1202-A] 1.5. ASl-RK who is said to have been present was not examined. As regard who conducted the personal search of the ladies, it is not the case of the prosecution that she had searched the ladies. Sub-section 4 of section 50 of C the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 postulates that personal search of the ladies must be conducted by a lady police officer. Curiously PW8 in his evidence categorically stated that there was no lady constable or lady officer posted at the police station, H. D If that be so why partici
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.