State of Punjab v. Jasbir Singh
Cited by 9 judgments in this corpus
- RANJAN KUMAR CHADHA v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH · 2023 INSC 878
- Himanshu Kumar vs State Of Chhatisgarh · 2022 INSC 719
- HIMANSHU KUMAR AND OTHERS v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS · 2022 INSC 720
- BHIMA RAZU PRASAD v. STATE, REP. BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBI/SPE/ACU-II · 2021 INSC 180
- Koyappakalathil Ahamed Koya vs A.S. Menon And Anr. · 2002CRILJ4502
- GURBAX SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA · 2001 INSC 74
- THE STATE OF PUNJAB v. BALDEV SINGH · 1999 INSC 282
- KALEM TUMBA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. · 1999 INSC 420
- STATE OF PUNJAB v. LABH SINGH ETC · 1996 INSC 758
These judgments mention this one. Whether each followed, distinguished or doubted it is not recorded here — read them before relying on any of it.
Leave granted.
Having considered the evidence we find it difficult to set aside the
order of acquittal recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge. Though the
offence involved is of a considerable magnitude of 70 bags containing 34
Kgs. of poppy husk, each without any permit/licence, this Court is con
strained to confirm the acquittal for the reasons that the mandatory re
quirements of Section 50 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances E
Act, 1985 has not been complied with. Protection given by s.50 is a valuable
right to the offender and compliance thereof intended to be mandatory. In
case the Police Officer had prior knowledge that illegal transport of the
contraband is in movement and persons are in unlawful possession and
intends to intercept it, conduct search and consequentially to seize the F
contraband, they required to inform the offender that he has the right that
the search will be conducted in the presence of a gazetted officer or a
Magistrate. Thereafter on their agreeing to be searched by the Police
officers, the search and seizure of the contraband from their unlawful
possession would become legal and valid. However, the evidence collected G
in breach of mandatory requirement does not become inadmissible. It is
settled law that evidence collected during investigation in violation of the
statutory provisions does not become inadmissible and the trial on the basis
thereof does not get vitiated. Each case is to be considered on its own back
drop. The learned Additional Sessions Judge did not accept the evidence
of the police officers on the ground that it was open to them, at the time H
744 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A of the search, to take in writing from the accused that they had no objection
to the search being conducted and that they were informed of their right
and they waived the search in the presence of a gazetted officer. It is a
matter of appreciation of evidence and that having considered the totality
of the facts and circumstances, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was
B not inclined to accept the prosecution case in the absence of anything in
writing. The view expressed by the Additional Sessions Judge cannot be
said to be unwarranted or unjustified. Under the circumstances, we are
constrained to confirm the order of acquittal though the High Court
unfortunately did not deal with the case properly.
C The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
T.N.A. Appeal dismissed.