9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (6) TMI 545 - SC - CustomsAcquittal Order passed by HC by setting aside the conviction - non-compliance of mandatory requirement of Section 50 - meaning of the words search any person - Offence punishable u/s 17 of the Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substance 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.
Issues:
Challenge to judgment allowing appeal based on non-compliance of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985. Detailed Analysis: The appeal in question challenges a judgment by a Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court that allowed the appeal filed by the accused. The accused was acquitted for an offense under Section 18 of the Act but convicted for an offense under Section 17. The High Court based its decision on the non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act. The primary issue revolves around the interpretation of the words "search any person" in Section 50. The defense argued that the word "person" includes any article or container carried by the individual, while the State contended that it refers only to the individual himself. The absence of a specific definition of the term "person" in the Act led to a debate on its interpretation. The principle of interpreting statutes according to their plain, literal, and grammatical meaning was emphasized. The Court referred to legal authorities to support the importance of adhering to the ordinary meaning of words unless it leads to absurdity or inconsistency. The judgment highlighted that dictionaries can be consulted to determine the correct meaning of terms in statutes. The Court analyzed the nature of items like bags, briefcases, or containers carried by individuals, concluding that they cannot be considered part of the person's body. It was emphasized that these items are distinct and identifiable objects that require additional effort to carry. The judgment also referenced a previous Constitution Bench decision regarding the application of Section 50 in cases of searches of individuals. Based on the legal principles and precedents cited, the Court determined that the High Court's acquittal solely on the grounds of Section 50 non-compliance was unsustainable. The matter was remitted back to the High Court for a fresh hearing on other grounds raised in the appeal, excluding the issue of Section 50 compliance, which was deemed inapplicable to the case. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed to this extent, setting aside the High Court's decision solely based on Section 50 non-compliance.
|
