LexTHAN KUNWAR versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 1090 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 3 S.C.R. THAN KUNWAR v. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 2172 of 2011) MARCH 02, 2020 [ASHOK BHUSHAN AND K. M. JOSEPH, JJ.] Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.50 – Applicability of s.50 in a case where there is personal search also – In the instant case, appellant and another accused carrying a bag in their hands were intercepted by police party – Contraband goods weighing 6 kg 300 gms were recovered from the bag – Conviction of appellant under s.18 by courts below – Challenged on the ground that s.50 was not complied; that DSP-Gazetted Officer in whose presence the search as alleged by the prosecution was conducted was present at the same time in another case; that the contraband allegedly 6 kgs 300 gms was not produced before the court and that prosecution has not associated any independent prosecution witness in support of its case – Held: This is not a case where anything was recovered on the alleged personal search – The recovery was effected from the bag for which law is settled that compliance with s.50 of the Act is not required – The contention regarding non-production of the contraband was not taken before the trial Court – This contention as such was taken before the High Court – This is a case where the sample was produced – There was no argument relating to the tampering with the seal – Courts below reposed confidence in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses – Thus, in the light of this, a case was not made for overturning the verdict of guilt returned against the appellant – In the circumstances, even though there appeared doubt as to whether the DSP was present, upon being called by PW7 having regard to the testimony of the DSP in the other case, in view of the fact that the contraband articles were in fact recovered upon search of the bag, and bearing in mind the view taken in Baljinder Singh, the case of the appellant is rejected. [2020] 3 S.C.R. 1090 1090 A B C D E F G H 1091 Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: This is not a case where anything was recovered on the alleged personal search. The recovery was effected from the bag for which it is settled law that compliance with Section 50 of the Act is not required. The judgment of the Trial Court did not appear to suggest the appellant had taken the contention regarding non-production of the contraband before the trial Court. This contention as such was taken before the High Court. This is a case where the sample was produced. There is no argument relating to the tampering with the seal. Though there appears to be doubt created about whether the DSP was present, upon being called by PW7 having regard to the testimony of the DSP in the other case, in view of the fact that the contraband articles were in fact recovered upon search of the bag, there is no merit in the argument of the appellant. [Paras 21, 30, 34][1098-G-H; 1104-E- F; 1105-E] Ashok alias Dangra Jaiswal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2011) 5 SCC 123 : [2011] 4 SCR 253 – distinguished. State of Punjab v. Baljinder Singh and Another (2019) 10 SCC 473 – relied on. Jitendra and Another v. State of M.P (2004) 10 SCC 562 : [2003] 3 Suppl. SCR 918 ; Gorakh Nath Prasad v. State of Bihar (2018) 2 SCC 305 ; State of Rajasthan v. Sahi Ram (2019) 10 SCC 649 ; Dilip and Another v. State of M.P. (2007) 1 SCC 450 : [2006] 9 Suppl. SCR 390 ; SK. Raju alias Abdul Haque alias Jagga v. State of West Bengal (2018) 9 SCC 708 : [2018] 10 SCR 731 ; Vijay Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2013) 14 SCC 527 : [2013] 4 SCR 293 ; Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2018) 18 SCC 540 : [2018] 10 SCR 910 – referred to. Case Law Reference [2003] 3 Suppl. SCR 918 referred to Para 4 (2018) 2 SCC 305 referred to Para 4 (2019) 10 SCC 649 referred to Para 5 THAN KUNWAR v. STATE OF HARYANA A B C D E F G H 1092 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 3 S.C.R. [2006] 9 Suppl. SCR 390 referred to Para 6 (2019) 10 SCC 473 relied on Para 7 [2018] 10 SCR 731 referred to Para 7 [2013] 4 SCR 293 referred to Para 25 [2018] 10 SCR 910 referred to Para 25 [2011] 4 SCR 253 distinguished Para 23 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 2172 of 2011. From the Judgment and Order dated 18.08.2008 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 2113-SB of 2005. Uday Gupta, Hiren Dasan, Chand Qureshi, Hemant Kushwaha, Ashish Gupta, Mrs. Sarla Chandra, Advs. for the Appellant. Shekhar Raj Sharma, Dr. Monika Gusain, Advs. for the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.