STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus RATAN LAL

Citation: [2009] 7 S.C.R. 227 · Decided: 31-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 7 S.C.R. 227 
" 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
A 
V. 
RATAN LAL 
Criminal Appeal No. 860 of 2004 
MARCH 31, 2009. 
B 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, D.K. JAIN AND DR. 
• 
MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ) 
NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUB-
STANCES ACT, 1985: 
c 
s. 50 - Search of 'person' of suspect -Accused found in 
possession of a bag containing opium - Prosecution -
Acquittal by trial court for non-compliance with requirement of 
s.50 - High Court refusing leave to State Government to file 
.. 
appeal - HELD: A bag, briefcase or any such article or D 
container etc. cannot be treated as body of human being -
High Court has not considered true effect of s. 50 - Leave 
granted to State Government to file appeal, which shall be 
heard by High Court on merits. 
' 
The respondent was found in possession of a bag E 
containing a large quantity of opium. The trial court 
acquitted him on the ground that requirements of s.50 of 
_,. 
the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 
1985 were not complied with. Subscribing to the said view, 
the High Court refused leave to the State Government to F 
file appeal. 
Allowing the appeal of the State, the Court 
HELD : In view of this Court's decision in Pawan 
Kumar*, a bag, briefcase or any such article or container 
etc. can, under no circumstances, be treated as body of a 
G 
human being. The High Court has not considered the true 
~ effect of s.50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic 
Substances Act, 1985. Leave is granted to the State 
227 
H 
228 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
· [2009] 7 S.C.R. 
A Government to file appeal, which shall be heard by the 
High Court on merits. [para 5 and 6] [229-8; 232-E] 
B 
State of H.P vs. Pawan Kumar 2005 (3) SCR 417 = 
(2005) 4 sec 350 - relied on. 
Case Law Reference 
2005 (3) SCR 417 
relied on 
para 5 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 860 of 2004 
C 
From the Judgement and Order dated 27.02.2004 of the 
Hoil'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in 
S.B. Crl. Leave to Appeal No. 52 of 2004. 
Rishi Malhotra, Milind Kumar, for the Appellant. 
D 
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by 
learned single Judge of Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur 
E refusing to grant leave against the judgment of acquittal passed 
by learned Special Judge, NDPS cases, Udaipur. 
• 
2. The accused faced trial for alleged commission of 
... 
offences punishable under Sections 8 and 18 of Narcotic Drugs 
and Psycotropic Substances Act, 1985 ( in short 'NDPS Act') 
F for being in illegal possession of a large quantity of opium. The 
trial Court directed acquittal only on the ground that there was 
non-compliance with requirements of Section 50 of the Act. The 
State filed an application for grant of leave to file appeal against 
such judgment. The High Court dismissed the application holding 
G that since there was non-compliance of mandatory requirement 
of Section 50 of the Act and there was no need for grant of leave. 
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in fact 
the recovery was made from a polythene bag and therefore 
H Section 50 has no application. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN V. RATAN LAL 
229 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
.... 
4. There is no appearance on beh~lf of the respondent. 
A 
5. The position relating to applicability of Section 50 of the 
Act when the search is of a bag, brief case or an article it was 
considered by a three Judge Bench of this Court in (2005) 4 
sec 350 (State of H.P. VS. Pawan Kumar and State of Rajastha 
B 
vs. Bhanwar Lal) in para 7, 8 10, 11 and 27 in Pawan Kumar's 
case it was held as follows: 
" 
... 
"7. The word "person" has not been defined in the Act. 
Section 2(xxix) of the Act says that the words and 
· expressions used herein and not defined but defined in c 
the Code of Criminal Procedure have the meanings 
respectively assigned to them in that Code. The Code of 
Criminal Procedure, however, does not define the word 
"person". Section 2(y) of the Code says that the words 
~ 
and expressions used therein and not defined but defined D 
in the Indian Penal Code have the meanings respectively 
assigned to them in that Code. Section 11 of the Indian 
Penal Code says that the word "person" includes any 
Company or Association or body of persons whether 
incorporated or not. Similar definition of the word "person" 
E 
has been given in Section 3(42) of the General Clauses 
Act. Therefore, these definitions render no a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.