STATE OF PUNJAB versus RAM PAL

Citation: [2009] 5 S.C.R. 601 · Decided: 26-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009) 5 S.C.R. 601 
·;-1 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
A 
v. 
RAM PAL 
(Criminal Appeal No. 291 of 2004) 
MARCH 26, 2009 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA 
AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 c 
- s. 25, 35 and 54 - Conviction u/s. 25 - Acquittal holding 
that conscious possession not established - On appeal, held: 
Law relating to conscious possession dealt with in a case 
decided by Supreme Court - Since the accused not 
represented, matter remitted to High Court to decide the case 
~ in accordance with decision passed by Supreme Court. 
D 
Words and Phrases - 'Conscious' and 'Possession' -
Meaning of in the context of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic 
substances Act, 1985. 
Respondent-accused was charged u/s. 15 of E 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic su'bstances Act, 1985 
with co-accused. Respondent was convicted u/s. 25 of 
the Act. High Court directed acquittal ?n th~ ground that 
_) 
conscious possession had not been established. Hence 
the present appeal. 
F 
I 
Allowing the appeal and remitting t,he matter to High 
Court, the Court 
I 
' 
HELD: 1. The expression "possession" is a G 
polymorphous term which assumed different colours in 
~,~ 
different contexts. It may carry different meanings in 
contextually different backgrounds. It is impossible, to 
work out a completely logical and precise definition of 
"possession" informally applicable to all situations in the 
H 
601 
602 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2009] 5 S.C.R. 
A context of all statutes. The word "conscious" means 
awarness about a particular fact, it is a state of mind 
which is deliberate or intended. Possession in a given 
case need not be physical possession but can be 
constructive, having power and control over the article 
.... -
B in the case in question, while the person to whom 
;._ 
c 
physical possession is given holds it subject to that 
power or control. The word "possession" means the 
legal right to possession. [Paras 4, 5, 6 and 8] [604-8, C; 
604-D; 604-E] 
Spdt. and Remembranqer of Legal Affairs, WB. vs. Anil 
Kumar Bhujja (1980) 1 SCR 323 and Gunwantlal vs. State 
of M.P. (1973) 1 SCR 508, relied on. 
2. Once possession is established, the person who 
D 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 
the presumption available in law. Similar is the position 
E in terms of Section 54 where also presumption is available 
to be drawn from possession of illicit articles. [Para 9] 
[604-G] 
3. Since the respondent is not represented the 
F impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is remitted 
\_ 
to the High Court for deciding the matter afresh in the 
light of what is stated by this court in Madan Lal's case. 
[Para 9] [605-8) 
Madan Lal and Anr. vs. State of H.P. 2003 (7) SCC 465, 
G relied on. 
H 
Case Law Reference: 
2003 (7) sec 465 
(1980) 1 SCR 323 
Relied on. 
Relied on. 
Para 3 
Para 4 
STATE OF PUNJAB v. RAM PAL 
603 
-
Jr 
(1973) 1 SCR 508 
Relied on. 
Para 6 
A 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 291 of 2004. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 25.02.2003 of the High 
• .l,, 
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Appeal No . B 
441-DB/2002. 
Kuldip Singh, R.K. Pandey, T.P. Mishra and Sanjay Katyal 
for the Appellant. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
c 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is 
to the judgment of acquittal recorded by a Division Bench of 
the Punjab and Haryana High Court directing acquittal of the 
·~ 
respondent who faced trial for alleged commission of offence 
D 
punishable under Section 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and 
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'Act'). He was 
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 11 
years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- with default stipulation 
by the learned Single Judge, Patiala. 
E 
2. So far as co-accused Amirk Singh is concerned, he was 
convicted under Section 15 of the Act and was awarded the 
same sentence. Two separate appeals were filed. It needs to 
_) 
be mentioned here that respondent Ram Pal was also charged 
F 
for offence punishable under Section 15 of the Act but in view 
of the conviction recorded in respect of Section 25 of the Act 
no sentence was awarded. Therefore, no separate sentence 
was imposed in respect of accusation relatable to Section 15 
of t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.