LexUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus L.D. BALAM SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. A v. L.D. BALAM SINGH APRIL 24, 2002 [UMESH C. BANERJEE AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.] B "' ,. Constitution of India, I950-Article 33-Fundamental rights- .. Applicability of to army personnel-Held, army personnel does not form a class of citizen fa/ling outside the purview of the Constitution-The provision C by itself does not abrogate any rights-Its applicability is dependent 011 par/iamellfary legislation. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, I985-Sections 4I, 42 and 50-Procedural safeguards-Applicability of to army perso11nel- Offence under NDPS Act-Trial under Army Act-Held, trial without taking D recourse to statutory safeguards under NDPS Act would be void and hence the trial would stand vitiated-Army Act, 1950-Section 69 . Opium was recovered from the family quarter of.respondent accused who was serving in Indian Army and two other civilians. Respondent was put to trial hy General Court Martial and tried under Section 69 of Army E Act, 1950 for offence punishable under Section 18 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) and convicted and sentenced thereunder. However, other two civilians who were tried by the Criminal Court were acquitted of the offence on the ground of non-compliance of mandatory requirements of NDPS Act. Respondent challenged the conviction and sentence by General Court Martial by filing writ petition which was allowed by High Court. F In appeal to this Court the questions for consideration before this Court were whether an army personnel form a class of citizens not entitled to the Constitution's benefit and are outside the purview of the Constitution and G whether substantive and procedural safeguards under a specific legislation are available to them. Respondent contended that entire proceedings stand vitiated due to non-compliance of Sections 41 and 42 as no search warrants were issued and H 385 386 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 3 S.C.R. A officers conducting the search were admittedly not duly authorised under NDPS Act Petitioner contended that by reason of the fact of the petitioner being a - 'persons' belonging to the armed forces, question of usual formality as regards the procedural aspects under NDPS Act would not arise; and that Section 50 B was not applicable in the instant case as contranband items were recovered from the residence of the respondent and not from the person of the respondent. ,,... Dismissing the appeal, the Court C HELD : I.I. An Army Personnel is as much a citizen as any other individual citizen of this country. Incidentally, the provisions as contained in Article 33 does not by itself abrogate any rights and its applicability is dependent on Parliamentary legislation. The language used by the framers is unambiguous and categorical and it is in this perspective Article 33 may be D noticed. [388-B, CJ 1.2. A plain reading of Article 33 of the Constitution would reveal that the extent of restrictions necessary to be imposed on any of the fundamental rights in their application to the armed forces and the forces charged with the maintenance of public order for the purpose of ensuring proper discharge E of their duties and maintenance of discipline among them would necessarily depend upon the prevailing situation at a given point of time and it would be inadvisable to encase it in a rigid statutory formula. [388-G) B. Viswar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., AIR (I983) (SC) 658; Lt. Col. Amal Sankar Bhaduri v. Union of India and Ors., (I987) CLT 1 and Prithi F Pal Singh v. The Union of India, AIR (I982) SC 14I3, referred to. 2.1. Having a perusal of the relevant statutory provisions (in particular Sections 4I and 42) the contention by respondent that the entire proceedings stand vitiated, since no search warrants were issued and officers conducting the search were admittedly not duly authorised under NJ)PS Act, cannot but G be termed as it has been inevitable and inescapable. [395-E] Roy V.D. v. State of Kera/a, [2001) SCC (Crl.) 42, relied on. 2.2. Section 50 is not applicable by reason of the faetum of the same being made applicable to the person and not t.he place. Section 50 sub-section H (1) by reas.on of the language used therein, does not amJ cannot have any "' • .. .... .... ~ U.O.l. v. L.D. BAI.AM SINGH 387 manner of application. in the facts of the present case. [398-D, F] State of Pu,Yab v. Baldev Singh (1999] 6 SC
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.