2007 (6) TMI 544 - SC - Indian Laws

Opium Recovered - Acquittal Order passed by HC by setting aside the conviction - non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 50 - Offence punishable u/s 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('Act') - HELD THAT - This Court has also followed this principle right from the beginning. In Jugalkishore Saraf v. Raw Cotton Co. Ltd. 1955 (3) TMI 38 - SUPREME COURT held that - The cardinal rule of construction of statutes is to read the statute literally, that is, by giving to the words used by the legislature their ordinary, natural and grammatical meaning. If, however, such a reading leads to absurdity and the words are susceptible of another meaning the Court may adopt the same. But if no such alternative construction is possible, the Court must adopt the ordinary rule of literal interpretation. A bag, briefcase or any such article or container, etc. can, under no 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, a tin box, a thaila, a jhola, a gathri, a holdall, a carton, etc. of varying size, dimension or weight. However, while carrying or moving along with them, some extra effort or energy would be required. They would have to be carried either by the hand or hung on the shoulder or back or placed on the head. In common parlance it would be said that a person is carrying a particular article, specifying the manner in which it was carried like hand, shoulder, back or head, etc. Therefore, it is not possible to include these articles within the ambit of the word person occurring in Section 50 of the Act. The scope and ambit of Section 50 of the Act was examined in considerable detail by a Constitution Bench in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh 1999 (7) TMI 630 - SUPREME COURT 12. On its plain reading, Section 50 would come into play only in the case of a search of a person as distinguished from search of any premises etc. However, if the empowered officer, without any prior information as contemplated by Section 42 of the Act makes a search or causes arrest of a person during the normal course of investigation into an offence or suspected offence and on completion of that search, a contraband under the NDPS Act is also recovered, the requirements of Section 50 of the Act are not attracted. In view of the aforesaid judgment by a three Judge Bench of this Court, the acquittal, as directed by the High Court, is clearly unsustainable. However, we find that other points were urged in support of the appeal before the High Court, but the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the accused only on the ground of non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act. It did not examine the other grounds of challenge. We, therefore, remit the matter to the High Court to hear the appeal afresh on grounds other than that of alleged non-compliance with Section 50 of the Act, which, as noted above, has no application to the facts of the case. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to judgment allowing Criminal Appeal based on non-compliance with Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background and Conviction:
The case involved an appeal challenging the judgment of a Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The respondent was found guilty under Section 18 of the Act and sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The High Court acquitted the respondent due to non-compliance with Section 50 of the Act.

2. Prosecution and Defence:
The prosecution's case involved the discovery of opium in an attach'e case carried by the accused on a bus. The prosecution presented five witnesses, and the accused, while maintaining innocence, did not present any witnesses in defense.

3. Interpretation of Section 50:
The main issue revolved around the interpretation of the term "person" in Section 50 of the Act. The defense argued that the term should include any article or container carried by the person, while the State contended that it referred only to the person himself. The absence of a specific definition in the Act led to a detailed analysis of the term.

4. Legal Interpretation and Precedents:
The Court emphasized the importance of interpreting statutes based on their plain meaning unless leading to absurdity. It cited legal principles and precedents to support a literal interpretation of the term "person." The Court highlighted that items like bags or containers cannot be considered part of a person's body and, therefore, should not fall under the definition of "person" in Section 50.

5. Previous Judgments and Conclusion:
The Court referred to a Constitution Bench decision in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, which clarified the scope of Section 50. The Bench's conclusions emphasized the importance of informing individuals of their rights during searches. The Court concluded that the acquittal based solely on non-compliance with Section 50 was unsustainable. The matter was remitted to the High Court for a fresh hearing on other grounds of challenge.

6. Final Decision:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal to the extent that the acquittal based on non-compliance with Section 50 was unsustainable. The Court directed the High Court to reconsider the appeal on other grounds not related to Section 50, as it did not apply to the facts of the case.

In summary, the judgment highlighted the importance of interpreting legal statutes, specifically Section 50 of the Act, and emphasized the need for compliance with legal procedures during searches and arrests to ensure fair trials and convictions.