Supreme Court of India
State Of Punjab vs Jasbir Singh on 28 November, 1995
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 1995 SC 131, 1996 (7) SCC 183, (1996) 1 CHAND CRI C 39, (1996) 1 ALL CRI LR 158, (1996) 1 RAJ LW 1, 1996 (1) SCC 288, (1996) 1 CUR CRI R 51, (1996) 1 EAST CRI C 230, (1995) 4 CRIMES 765, (1996) 1 EFR 224, (1996) 1 CRI CJ 318, 1996 CRI LR(SC MAH GUJ) 58, (1996) 54 ECC 79, (1996) 1 ORISSA LR 469, 1996 ALL APP CAS (CRI) 60, 1996 SCC (CRI) 1, (1995) 4 CRIMES 767(1), (1996) 1 EASTCRIC 231, 1996 CRILR(SC MAH GUJ) 136, (1995) 2 MADLW(CRI) 606, (1995) MAD LJ(CRI) 702, (1996) 1 SCJ 196, (1996) 2 MADLW(CRI) 568, (1996) 1 CRICJ 226, (1996) 2 FAC 343, (1996) 1 CURCRIR 63, (1996) 1 CHANDCRIC 256, 1996 SCC (CRI) 248, 1996 CRI LR (SC&MP) 58, 1996 CRILR(SC&MP) 136, (1995) 4 CRIMES 767, (2006) 1 ESC 649, (2006) 63 ALL LR 37, 2011 (14) SCC 685, (2013) 1 BOMCR(CRI) 615, (2013) 1 CRIMES 213, (2013) 1 CURCRIR 449, (2013) 1 SCALE 397, (2013) 2 ALLCRILR 58, (2013) 2 MH LJ (CRI) 263, 2013 (2) SCC 584, (2013) 3 RECCRIR 929, (2013) 54 OCR 858, 2013 CALCRILR 2 286
Author: K. Ramaswamy
Bench: K. Ramaswamy
CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1594 of 1995 PETITIONER: STATE OF PUNJAB RESPONDENT: JASBIR SINGH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/11/1995 BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY & S.B, MAJMUDAR JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT 1995 Suppl. (5) SCR 742 The following order of the Court was delivered :
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 und Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 has not been complied with. Protection given by s.50 is a valuable right to the offender and compliance thereol 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 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 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 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 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.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. T.N.A.