The State Of Punjab vs. Gurnam @ Gama Etc.

2025 INSC 960
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.2836-2837 OF 2025
STATE OF PUNJAB ...Appellant(s)
Vs.
GURNAM @ GAMA ETC. ...Respondent(s)

O R D E R
(1) The appellant-State of Punjab is before this
1
Court impugning the judgment of the High Court by which the
2 3
criminal appeals filed by the respondents were allowed and
4 5
the judgment of the Trial Court convicting the respondents
was set aside. It relied upon the judgment of this Court in
6
the case of Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab wherein it was held
that fair investigation, which is the foundation of fair
trial, postulates that the informant and investigator must
not be the same person.
(2) We may analyze the facts in brief. A secret
1 High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
2 CRA No.12/2011 and CRA No.786/2011
3 Dated 11.12.2018
4 Dated 11.12.2010
5 Challan No.322 of 2010
6 (2018) 17 SCC 627 : 2018 INSC 714
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2025.08.12
15:44:42 IST
Reason:
1

th
information was received on 20 September, 2009 that poppy
husk was being transported in a truck. A truck bearing
registration No.PIX 0146 was stopped. Gurnam Singh alias
Gama was found to be sitting on the stack of bags in cargo
portion of the truck, while Jaswinder Singh was driving the
truck. Both are the respondents in these two appeals. On
search, 750 kilograms of poppy husk was found along with two
motorcycles. First Information Report (FIR) No.221 of 2009
was registered. After trial, the respondents were convicted
th
and vide judgment dated 11 December, 2010, they were
directed to undergo RI for a period of 12 years and to pay a
₹
fine of 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) each.
(3) Aggrieved against the judgment of the Trial
Court, the respondents preferred Criminal Appeal Nos.D-12-DB
of 2011 and D-786-DB-2011 before the High Court. When the
appeals were taken up for hearing, relying upon the judgment
of this Court in the case of Mohan Lal ’s case (supra) and
without discussing the merits of the controversy, the same
were allowed. The conviction of the respondents was set
aside.
(4) The aforesaid common judgment of the High Court
is under challenge before this Court by the appellant-State
of Punjab.
(5) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
2

after the judgment of this Court in Mohan Lal ’s case
7
( supra ), in the case of Varinder Kumar v. State of H.P. , a
three Judge Bench of this Court clarified the position, as
was held in Mohan Lal ’s case ( supra), that all pending
criminal prosecution, trials and appeals prior to the law
laid down in Mohan Lal ’s case ( supra) shall continue to be
governed by the individual facts of the case. In the case
in hand, the appeals were pending before the High Court
prior to the law laid down in Mohan Lal ’s case ( supra) . In
th
fact, the appeals were decided on 11 December, 2018 i.e.
th
after the aforesaid judgment was delivered on 16 August,
2018.
(6) She has further referred to a Constitution Bench
judgment of this Court in the case of Mukesh Singh v. State
8 st
(Narcotics Branch of Delhi) , delivered on 31 August, 2020 ,
reference was made to a larger Bench regarding correctness
of the judgment of this Court in Mohan Lal ’s case ( supra) .
The opinion expressed by the Constitution Bench of this
Court was that there is no reason to question the
credibility of the informant and doubt the entire case of
the prosecution solely on the ground that the informant had
investigated the case. The submission is that in the case
in hand, the acquittal by the High Court was solely on the
7 (2020) 3 SCC 321 : 2019 INSC 170
8 (2020) 10 SCC 120 : 2020 INSC 524
3

ground that investigator and the prosecutor was the same
person.
(7) Referring to the credentials of the respondents,
learned counsel for the appellant has produced a list of
cases in which the respondent (Gurnam @ Gama) in Criminal
Appeal No.2836 of 2025 was involved. In some of them, he
was convicted, whereas in some, he was acquitted. Trial in
few cases is still pending. It was argued that there were
two FIRs against Gurnam @ Gama prior to the registration of
the FIR in question whereas 11 FIRs were registered after
that, out of which 7 were under the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, “the NDPS
Act”) whereas 4 were under other different statutes such as
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Punjab Good Conduct Prisons
Temporary Release Act, 1962. He was convicted in 5 FIRs,
acquitted in 3 and trial in 2 FIRs is still pending. From
the list, it is evident that 2 FIRs in which the trial is
pending were in fact registered after the acquittal in the
case in question. Both are under the NDPS Act. The list as
furnished by her is extracted below:
CRIMINAL ANTECEDENTS OF THE RESPONDENT – GURNAM @ GAMA

4

5

(8) The submission is that seeing the conduct of the
respondent (Gurnam @ Gama) he did not deserve any concession
from the Court purely on technicalities.
(9) As far as the respondent (Jaswinder Singh) in
Criminal Appeal No.2837 of 2025 is concerned, the submission
is that she does not have any information/details about his
antecedents after the FIR in question was registered.
(10) On the other hand, learned senior counsel for
the respondents submitted that the judgment in Mohan Lal ’s
th
case ( supra) was delivered on 16 August, 2018 and it was
the law on that day and relying upon the same, the High
Court had acquitted the respondents vide impugned judgment
th
dated 11 December, 2018. Any subsequent opinion by the
Court cannot have retrospective operation. Hence, the
acquittal of the respondents cannot be turned down.
(11) He raised serious objections to the production
of antecedents of the respondent - Gurnam @ Gama by the
learned counsel for the appellant in Court stating that the
same has not been furnished along with any affidavit.
Hence, these cannot be referred to and relied upon.
(12) Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material placed on record. The facts of the
case are not required to be given in detail, as perusal of
6

the impugned judgment of the High Court by which the
respondents were acquitted shows that the evidence led
before the Trial Court was not considered or appreciated.
The acquittal was solely on the principle of law laid down
by this Court in Mohan Lal ’s case ( supra) .
(13) The judgment in Mohan Lal ’s case ( supra) was
th
delivered by this Court on 16 August, 2018. The High Court
th
judgment in favor of the respondents is dated 11 December,
2018. Thereafter, the Special Leave Petitions were filed
with delay. However, the delay was condoned and the leave
was granted. After the judgment of the Mohan Lal ’s case
( supra), a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Varinder
Kumar ’s case (supra) clarified the position with reference
to Mohan Lal ’s case ( supra) in paragraph 18 of the judgment.
The same is extracted below:
“18. The criminal justice delivery system, cannot
be allowed to veer exclusively to the
benefit of the offender making it
unidirectional exercise. A proper
administration of the criminal justice
delivery system, therefore, requires
balancing the rights of the accused and the
prosecution, so that the law laid down in
Mohan Lal is not allowed to become a
springboard for acquittal in prosecutions
prior to the same, irrespective of all other
considerations. We, therefore, hold that
7

all pending criminal prosecutions, trials
and appeals prior to the law laid down in
Mohan Lal shall continue to be governed by
the individual facts of the case.”
(14) A perusal of the aforesaid opinion expressed by
this Court shows that the rights of the accused and the
prosecution are required to be balanced and the judgment in
Mohan Lal ’s case ( supra) could not be allowed to be a
springboard for acquittal in prosecutions prior to the same,
irrespective of all other considerations. It was held that
all pending criminal prosecutions, trials and appeals prior
to the law laid down in Mohan Lal ’s case ( supra) shall
continue to be governed by the individual facts of the case.
It is not in dispute that in the case in hand the appeals
were pending before the judgment in Mohan Lal ’s case ( supra)
was delivered. Thereafter, the matter was taken to this
Court where the same is pending.
(15) Further, we may add that the opinion expressed
in Mohan Lal ’s case ( supra) was doubted and the matter was
referred to the Constitution Bench (Mukesh Singh’s case
(supra)) where the opinion expressed by this Court in Mohan
Lal ’s case ( supra) was held to be not a good law and
overruled. Para 12.(II) whereof is extracted below:
“12.(II) In a case where the informant himself
is the investigator, by that itself
8

cannot be said that the investigation
is vitiated on the ground of bias or
the like factor. The question of bias
or prejudice would depend upon the
facts and circumstances of each case.
Therefore, merely because the
informant is the investigator, by that
itself the investigation would not
suffer the vice of unfairness or bias
and therefore on the sole ground that
informant is the investigator, the
accused is not entitled to acquittal.
The matter has to be decided on a
case-to-case basis. A contrary
decision of this Court in Mohan Lal v.
State of Punjab and any other decision
taking a contrary view that the
informant cannot be the investigator
and in such a case the accused is
entitled to acquittal are not good law
and they are specifically overruled.”
(emphasis supplied)
(16) We may notice the argument raised by the learned
senior counsel for the respondents that any judgment will
not have retrospective effect. In our opinion, nothing
hinges on that. Courts only interprets law and do not enact
law. In the case in hand, the judgment of Mohan Lal’s case
(supra) prevailed when the High Court decided the appeals.
However, thereafter, the matter is pending in this Court and
since appeals are continuation of proceedings, the law as
9

available today is to be applied. The acquittal of the
respondents in the present case was merely on technical
ground in view of Mohan Lal ’s case ( supra) which was diluted
in Varinder Kumar’s case (supra) and then overruled
subsequently by the Constitution Bench of this Court in
Mukesh Singh’s case (supra).
(17) Hence, in our opinion, the appeals deserve to be
allowed. Ordered accordingly. The impugned judgment of the
High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted back to
the High Court for consideration on merits.
(18) Keeping in view that the appeals pertain to the
year 2010, High Court is requested to expedite the hearing
thereof.
(19) Pending applications, if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
..........................J.
(RAJESH BINDAL)

..........................J.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
NEW DELHI;
July 30, 2025
10