SURENDER @ KALA versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2016] 1 S.C.R. 174 · Decided: 19-01-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. GOPALA GOWDA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
[2016] l S.C.R. 174 
SURENDER @ KALA 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 50 of2016) 
JANUARY 19, 2016 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.] 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: ss.18, 
50 - Appellant suspected to be in possession of opium without any 
permit or licence - Opted search in presence of Gazetted Officer -
Personal search undertaken and recovery of opium weighing 1 Kg. 
- Courts below convicted him u/s.18 - Conviction challenged on 
the ground that the investigation was conducted by Sub-Inspector 
who himself was the complainant and therefore investigation was 
not proper and appellant was entitled to acquittal - Held: The search 
of the appellant was conducted in the presence of and under the 
instructions of the Gazeued Officer - The extracts of depositions 
of other prosecution witnesses show that it was not Sub-Inspector 
alone who was involved in the investigation - lntetference with the 
order of conviction not called for. 
State by Inspector of Police, Narcotic Intelligence 
Bureau, Madhurai, Tamil Nadu v. Rajangam 2010 (15) 
SCC 369; Megha Singh v. State of Haryana 1996 (11) 
sec 709 - held inapplicable. 
Case Law Reference 
2010 (15) sec 369 
held inapplicable. 
Paras 9, 10, 11 
1996 (11) SCC 709 
held inapplicable. 
Paras 10, 11 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 50 of 2016 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.12.2014 of the High Court 
G 
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. S-318-SB 
of2004. 
H 
Rakesh Dahiya, Brig. M. L. Khatter, Satyavan Kudalwal for the 
Appellant. 
Devender Kr. Saini, AAG, Vishwapal Singh, Sanjay Kumar Visen 
for the Respondent. 
174 
SURENDER @ KALA v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
UDAY U. LALIT, J. l. Leave granted. 
175 
A 
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 
11 .12.2014 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing 
Criminal Appeal No. S-318-SB of 2004 preferred by the appellant against 
his conviction under Section 18 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic 
B 
Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act") for being in 
possession of I kg of opium without any permit or licence. 
3. According to the prosecution PW6 SI Satbir Singh was on 
usual patrol duty on 24.06.2002 along with other police officials at bus 
stand of village Bichpar, Distt Soni pat. Secret information was received 
by him that the appellant was selling opium and was roaming in the 
village in search of customers. This information was reduced to writing 
c 
in the form of Ruqa Ext. PF and was sent to the Police Station for 
information, whereupon DOR Ext. PC was recorded. PW6 Satbir and 
other police officials reached the bus stand and saw the appellant coming 
D 
from village Gangana side. He was apprehended. The appellant was 
told that he was suspected to be carrying opium in his possession and as 
such his personal search had to be undertaken and that he had a right to 
be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. The 
appellant was given an appropriate notice vide Ext. PA under Section 50 
of the Act and by his reply Ext. PA/ I he opted to be searched before a 
Gazetted Officer. 
E 
4. Thereafter a wireless message was sent to PW4 Shyam Singh 
Rana, DSP Gohana who reached the spot. The appellant was produced 
before him and PW 4 was also acquainted with the facts of the case. 
Thereafter, on the instructions of PW 4, personal search of the appellant 
F 
was undertaken which resulted in recovery of opium from the possession 
of the appellant. The opium was found in a polythene bag tied in a cloth 
around the stomach of the appellant. On weighment, it was found to be 
lkg 50gms. A sample was taken and put in a small plastic bag while the 
remainder was put in a bag of cloth. The sample and the remainder 
G 
were separately sealed and taken in possession vide memo Ext. PB. 
The seal was then handed over to PW! ASI Bishamber Lal. Thereafter 
Ruqa Ext. PC was sent to the Police Station for registration of crime, 
whereupon FIR Ext. PC was recorded by PW2 Head Constable Om 
Parkash. 
H 
176 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 1 S.C.R. 
5. The appellant along with the case property was produced before 
PW3 Yad Ram SHO of Police Station who verified the fact and put his 
own seal bearing impression "YR" on the sample as well as on the 
remainder. Thereafter the sealed case property was hande

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.