Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 1001 of 2000
PETITIONER:
STATE OF HARYANA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
VIKRAM SINGH
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/01/2002
BENCH:
N. Santosh Hegde & Doraiswamy Raju
JUDGMENT:
SANTOSH HEGDE,J.
Being aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court of
Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh passed in Criminal Appeal
No.442-SB/1988, the State of Haryana is in appeal before us. The
respondent herein was charged with an offence punishable under
Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985 (for short ’the Act’), and was tried for the same by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, who found him guilty of the
said offence and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 10 years and
to pay a fine of RS.1 lakh. It was further directed that in default
of payment of fine, he shall undergo further RI for 5 years.
It was the prosecution case that on 24.1.1987 the
respondent, when apprehended and searched, was found carrying
15 kg. of opium. The prosecution case further stated that as
required under Section 50 of the Act, the respondent was duly
informed of his right of being searched before a Gazetted Officer
or a Magistrate but he declined that offer, and based on the
Panchnama of search and the evidence of the three witnesses, he
was found guilty by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and
sentenced, as stated above.
In appeal, the High Court came to the conclusion that the
prosecution has not established that as a matter of fact, the
respondent was informed of his right under Section 50. It also
noticed that the FIR filed in the case did not contain any
averment to the effect that an offer to be searched before a
Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate was made, hence, held that the
prosecution case, that such an offer was made was an
afterthought. It also came to the conclusion that the oral evidence
of the prosecution witnesses cannot be relied upon and the Panch
witness who was examined, was a stock witness who had earlier,
in similar cases, given evidence on behalf of the prosecution and
in this case had turned hostile, therefore, it was not safe to rely
upon such evidence, accordingly, allowed the appeal and set
aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the respondent.
As stated above, the State is in appeal before us. We have
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. It is
an admitted fact that the offer of search as stipulated under
Section 50 of the Act is not supported by any documentary
evidence. Both in regard to this factum of offer of search and to
establish its case, the prosecution relies upon the oral evidence.
In our opinion, the High Court has rightly come to the conclusion
that PW-1 who was examined in this regard has turned hostile
and has not supported the case of the prosecution. The High
Court has also noticed the fact that PW-1 was a stock witness for
the Police. That being the case, the High Court felt it was not safe
to rely on the evidence of PW-1, the Inspector, and PW-3, the
Assistant Sub-Inspector. In such circumstances, we are not
persuaded to take a contrary view. More so in the background of
the fact, the search and seizure in this case was not proved to be
in accordance with law.
In the result, we find no infirmity in the impugned
judgment of the High Court. Accordingly, this appeal fails and
the same is dismissed.
..................................J.
(N.Santosh Hegde)
...................................J.
January 22, 2002. (Doraiswamy Raju)