LexSTATE OF RAJASTHAN versus BABU RAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
'
ST A TE OF RAJAS THAN
A
-
'I
v.
BABU RAM
JUNE 5,2007
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.]
B
~
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985:
_,
s. 50[1 ]-"search any person "-Meaning of-Held: In a case of search c
of a bag which was with the accused, s.50 has no application.
Words & Phrases:
Expression "search any person'', occurring in s.50{1} of Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985-Connotation of
D
T)
Respondent was carrying a bag. On the search of the said bag, it was
found to have contained the contraband substance. Respondent was convicted
u/s 17 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The
High Court directed his acquittal on the ground of non-compliance of s.50 of
the Act.
E
In the appeal filed by the State, it was contended that search was not of
person of the accused but of bag which was with him and, therefore, the High
Court erroneously held that requirement ofs.50 of the Act was not complied
with.
On the question: what is the meaning of the words "search any person" F
occurring in sub-section 111 of s.50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances, 1985,
Allowing the appeal and permitting the matter to the High Court, the
Court
G
HELD: I.I. The word "person" has not been defined in the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. One of the basic principles
.,_
of interpretation of Statutes is to construe the words according to their plain,
literal and grammatical meaning. If that is contrary to, or inconsistent with,
939
H
940
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
12007] 7 S.C.R.
A 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 modified, extended or abridged, so as to avoid such an inconveniem:e, but
no further. [Para 6 and 711942-C, E, Fl
Jugalkishore Sarafv. Raw Cotton Co. Ltd., AIR (1955) SC 376, relied
B on.
Craies on Statute Law. Seventh ed. Page 83-85 and Principles of
Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh, referred to.
1.2. A bag, briefcase or any such article or container, etc, can under no
C circumstances, be treated as body of a human being. They are given a separate
name and are identifiable as such. They cannot even remotely be treated to be
part of the body of a human being. Depending upon the physical capacity of a
person, he may carry any number of items like a bag, a briefcase, a suitcase,
etc. of varying size, dimension or weight. Therefore, it is not possible to
D include these articles within the ambit of the word "person' occurring in
section 50 of the Act. In view of the judgment in Pawan Kumar's case* the
acquittal as directed by the High Court is clearly unsustainable.
I Para 9 and 1311943-D, F; 945-A-Bf
*State of H.P. v. Pawan Kumar, 12005) 4 SCC 350 and State of Punjab
E v. Baldev Singh, 1199916sec172, relied on.
1.3 However, other points were urged in support of the appeal before
the High Court, but it allowed the appeal only on the ground of non-<ompliance
of section 50 of the Act. It did not examine the other grounds of challenge.
Therefore, the High Court would hear the appeal afresh on grounds other
F than that of alleged non-compliance with section 50 of the Act, which has no
application to the facts of the case. IPara 13) 1945-B-C)
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1097 of
2002.
G
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.22002 of the High Court of
Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 338/1987.
Naveen Kuamr Singh, Mukul Sood, Aruneshwar Gupta for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
.;,.
f
r
)
.,_
ST ATE OF RAJASTHAN v. BABU RAM lPASA Y AT. J.1
941
DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. I. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment A
rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur
allowing the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the
'accused'). Before the High Court the challenge was to the order dated
31.8.1987 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra, in Sessions Case
No.I0/86 by which while acquitting the accused for offence punishable under B
Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), convicted him for offence punishable
under Section 17 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo RI for 10 years
and to pay a fine of rupees one Iakh with default sExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.