Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2007 (6) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (6) TMI 544 - SC - Indian LawsOpium Recovered - Acquittal Order passed by HC by setting aside the conviction - non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 50 - Offence punishable u/s 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('Act') - HELD THAT:- This Court has also followed this principle right from the beginning. In Jugalkishore Saraf v. Raw Cotton Co. Ltd.[1955 (3) TMI 38 - SUPREME COURT] held that: -"The cardinal rule of construction of statutes is to read the statute literally, that is, by giving to the words used by the legislature their ordinary, natural and grammatical meaning. If, however, such a reading leads to absurdity and the words are susceptible of another meaning the Court may adopt the same. But if no such alternative construction is possible, the Court must adopt the ordinary rule of literal interpretation." A bag, briefcase or any such article or container, etc. can, under no circumstances, be treated as body of a human being. They are given a separate name and are identifiable as such. They cannot even remotely be treated to be part of the body of a human being. Depending upon the physical capacity of a person, he may carry any number of items like a bag, a briefcase, a suitcase, a tin box, a thaila, a jhola, a gathri, a holdall, a carton, etc. of varying size, dimension or weight. However, while carrying or moving along with them, some extra effort or energy would be required. They would have to be carried either by the hand or hung on the shoulder or back or placed on the head. In common parlance it would be said that a person is carrying a particular article, specifying the manner in which it was carried like hand, shoulder, back or head, etc. Therefore, it is not possible to include these articles within the ambit of the word "person" occurring in Section 50 of the Act. The scope and ambit of Section 50 of the Act was examined in considerable detail by a Constitution Bench in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh[1999 (7) TMI 630 - SUPREME COURT] : "12. On its plain reading, Section 50 would come into play only in the case of a search of a person as distinguished from search of any premises etc. However, if the empowered officer, without any prior information as contemplated by Section 42 of the Act makes a search or causes arrest of a person during the normal course of investigation into an offence or suspected offence and on completion of that search, a contraband under the NDPS Act is also recovered, the requirements of Section 50 of the Act are not attracted." In view of the aforesaid judgment by a three Judge Bench of this Court, the acquittal, as directed by the High Court, is clearly unsustainable. However, we find that other points were urged in support of the appeal before the High Court, but the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the accused only on the ground of non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act. It did not examine the other grounds of challenge. We, therefore, remit the matter to the High Court to hear the appeal afresh on grounds other than that of alleged non-compliance with Section 50 of the Act, which, as noted above, has no application to the facts of the case. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
|