LexSTATE OF PUNJAB versus HARI SINGH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
[2009] 2 S.C.R. 470
STATE OF PUNJAB
v
HARi SINGH & ORS.
Criminal Appeal No. 319 of 2009
FEBRUARY 16, 2009
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.)
NARCOTIC
DRUGS
AND
PSYCHOTROPIC
•
SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985:
s. 15 rlw ss. 35 and 54 - Possession of contraband item
-- 'Conscious possession' -
Accused found sitting on gunny
bags containing poppy husk - Held: Once possession is
proved, .the person who claims that it was not a conscious
D possession has to establish it - In the instant case, though
there was evidence regarding conscious possession, no
{.
question relating to possession was put to accused uls 313 Cr
P C, High Court rightly acquitted the accused - Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 313.
E
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973:
s. 313 - Examination of accused - Accused found in
possession of contraband articles and prosecuted for
commission of offence punishable uls 15 of 1985 Act - Plea
of accused that during trial no question relating to possession
F was put to any of them uls 313 - Held: -
When accused were
examined uls 313, the essence of accusation was not brought
to their notice, more particularly, the possession aspect- Such
omission vitally affects the prosecution case - Guidelines for
examination u/s 313 of accused who is already exempted from
G personal appearance - Order of Hfgh Court acquitting the
accused does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference
-
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 -
ss 15, 35 and 54 - Natural justice - Audi a/term partem.
H
470
l
STATE OF PUNJAB V.
471
HARi SINGH & ORS.LRS.
Interpretation of Statutes - Expressions 'may' and 'shall' A
- Interpretation of.
Words and Phrases:
Expressions 'may' and 'shall' as occurring in clause (a)
and (b) of s.313(1) CrPC - Connotation of.
s
The respondents were prosecuted for commission
of offence punishable u/s 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, as they were found
sitting on 16 gunny bags of poppy husk. When they saw
the police, they tried to slip away, but the police C
apprehended them. The stand of the accused before the
trial court was that they were falsely implicated in the case
as some of the police officers were inimical to them. The
trial court found the accusation against the accused
established, and convicted and sentenced them to 10 D
years RI and to a fine of Rs. 1 lakh each. The High Court
acquitted the accused accepting their pleas that there was
no evidence to show any conscious possession a.nd no
question regarding possession was put to any of them in
their examination u/s 313 CrPC. Aggrieved, the State filed E
the appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Whether there was conscious possession
has to. be determined with reference. to the factual F
backdrop in each case. The fact which can be culled out
from the evidence on record is that the accus.ed persons
were sitting atop gunny bags containing the contraband
articles. Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 makes possession G
of contraband articles an offence and deals with
punishment for contravention in relation to poppy straw.
(Paras 10 and 11) [ 478-8, C]
Superintendent & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West
Bengal vs. Anil Kumar Bhunja & Ors. AIR (1980) SC 52 and H
472
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 2 S.C.R.
A
Gunwantlal vs. The State of M. P. Al R ( 1972) SC 1756 - referred
\
'
to.
I-
Health vs. Drown (1972) 2 All ER 561 (HL) and Sullivan
~
vs. Earl of Caithness (1976) 1 All ER 844 (QBD) - referred to.
B
1.2 Once possession is established, the person who
claims that it was not a conscious possession has to
establish it, because how he came to be in possession is
within his special knowledge. Section 35 of the Act gives
~
a statutory recognition of this position because of
~
~
presumption available in law. Similar is the position·. in
c terms of Section 54 where also presumption is available
to be drawn from possession of illicit articles. (Para - 17)
[479-C]
,..
Madan Lal & Anr vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2003)
'----
6 SCALE 483 - referred to.
1
D
2.1 Section 313 Cr.P.C. itself declares its object in
,.>
explicit language that it is "for the purpose of enabling
~
the accused personally to explain any circumstances
I
appearing in the evidence against him". At the same time
i
it s,hould be borne in mind tha.t the provision is 'not
~
E
inExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.