9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (9) TMI 769X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court by the impugned judgment. He has questioned the legality thereof in the present appeal. The compass of controversy as unfolded during trial by the prosecution is as follows: On 22.2.1993, police party headed by SI Chanan Singh, In-charge of Police Station Dharamgarh (PW 1/B) was going on kacha road towards drain from village Dharamgarh in connection with patrol duty and when they reached near brick kiln, Santa Singh son of Bachan Singh met them and joined in the police party. When the police party was little short of the drain, they saw three persons sitting on gunny bags. Two of them fled from the spot and the third one, accused-appellant Megh Singh was apprehended. He disclosed the names of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bt has been given to the other co-accused persons, there was no basis for convicting the accused-appellant. There was no material to show any conscious possession which is sine qua non for conviction under Section 15 of the Act. In any event, requirements of Section 50 were not complied with. High Court discarded the plea regarding arrest of Megh Singh on 19.2.1993 on the ground that the evidence on record establishes that the application/telegram was received on 24.2.1993 and merely because an earlier date was indicated, it cannot be said that the accused was really arrested on 19.2.1993. Coming to the plea of conscious possession it was held that the prosecution had produced ample evidence that accused was in physical possession and in te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng atop gunny bags containing the contraband articles. Section 20(b) makes possession of contraband articles an offence. Section 20 appears in chapter IV of the Act which relates to offence for possession of such articles. It is submitted that in order to make the possession illicit, there must be a conscious possession. It is highlighted that unless the possession was coupled with requisite mental element, i.e. conscious possession and not mere custody without awareness of the nature of such possession, Section 20 is not attracted. The expression possession is a polymorphous term which assumes different colours in different contexts. It may carry different meanings in contextually different backgrounds. It is impossible, as was obs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ighlighted in Madan Lal and Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2003 (6) SCALE 483). In the factual scenario of the present case not only possession but conscious possession has been established. It has not been shown by the accused-appellant that the possession was not conscious in the logical background of Sections 35 and 54 of the Act. Now comes the question whether there was non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act. A bare reading of Section 50 shows that it only applies in case of personal search of a person. It does not extend to search of a vehicle or a container or a bag, or premises. (See Kalema Tumba v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (JT 1999 (8) SC 293), The State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (JT 1999 (4) SC 595), Gurbax Singh v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
