REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 939 OF 2007

State of Punjab     … APPELLANT

Versus

Gurnam Kaur & Ors.              … RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

S.B. Sinha, J.

1. State of Punjab is in appeal before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied

with a Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 17th July, 2006 passed by the

High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 157-DB of 2004.  

2. Respondents herein are three ladies, viz., Gurnam Kaur, Ranjit Kaur

and Gurjit Kaur.  Gurnam Kaur is wife of Pargat Singh.   Paramjit Singh @

Pamma,  Amolak  Singh  and  Hira  Singh  are  sons  of  Pargat  Singh.

Respondent Nos. 2 & 3, namely, Ranjit Kaur and Gurjit Kaur are wives of

Hira Singh and Paramjit Singh respectively.  

3. On or about 16-06-2000 one Shri S.S. Mand, DSP (D),  Kapurthala

purported  to  have  received  a  secret  information.   He,  pursuant  to  the

direction of SSP, Kapurthala, was standing at the turning of Dhilwan Road,

Dhussi Bundh in connection with a ‘nakabandi’ arranged on the basis of the

said secret information.  Inspector Gurmukh Singh, SI Nirmal Singh, ASI

Jaswinder Pal Singh, ASI Paramjit Singh, Head Constable Manohar Singh,

Head  Constable  Surinder  Kumar,  Head Constable  Gurmail  Singh,  Head

Constable Swaran Singh, Constable Harjit Singh, Constable Malkiat Singh,

Constable  Raj  Kumar,  Constable  Swaran  Singh,  Constable  Surinder  Pal

Singh, Constable Lakhwinder Singh, Constable Baljinder Singh were with

him.   One U.P.  Bhatt,  Intelligence  Officer  of  Narcotics  Control  Bureau

(NCB) was also present.   

4. At about 7:30 a.m., one Maruti Car bearing registration No.HR03A-

2642  was  found  coming from the  side  of  Amritsar  town.   Allegedly  on

seeing the police party, the driver of the car stopped the vehicle at a distance

of about 50 yards from them and made an attempt to turn the car backwards.

Three persons came out of the car and ran towards the fields.  The driver of

the car was, however, apprehended.  He disclosed his name as Gurlal Singh

@ Lalli.  He was taken in custody.  He alleged that other three persons who

2

had fled  away were  Paramjit  Singh  @ Pamma,  Amolak  Singh  and Hira

Singh.   

5. He was allegedly asked as to whether he would like to get his car

searched by a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, he expressed no objection to

the searched by the officer himself.   On search narcotics  were recovered

from the said car.

Five packets  of heroin marked ‘333’ were recovered from a gunny

bag.   Each packet weighed one kg.  Samples therefrom were taken.  Some

narcotics were also found in the car, total being 55 Kgs. of heroin and 22

Kgs. of opium.   

A First Information Report was lodged.  Gurlal Singh allegedly made

a statement that if the houses of Hira Singh and Pargat Singh are raided, a

large quantity of contraband would be recovered.  Pursuant thereto a raid

was arranged.  DSP Baldev Singh, PW3 and other police officials went to

village Thatha.  They met DSP Ashutosh, PW8, of Amritsar district in the

said village itself.   

6. All the respondents were said to have been found sitting in one of the

rooms of the said house.  From the box which was in the back of the bed in

the room where respondents were sitting, opium wrapped in a glazed paper

3

and two packets of heroin were recovered.  Sample thereof was said to have

been taken.   

7. A First Information Report was lodged at about 5:15 p.m. on 16-06-

2000.  Indisputably, Parmajit Singh by that time was already arrested and in

the custody of the investigating officer.

No independent witness was examined by the prosecution.   

Respondents herein were prosecuted for commission of offence under

the said Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short,  ‘the

Act’).

8. The learned Trial Judge found the respondents guilty of commission

of an Offence under Sections 18 and 20 of the Act and convicted them to

undergo rigorous  imprisonment  for  a period  of  twelve  years  and fine  of

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only).

9. By  reason  of  the  impugned  judgment,  the  High  Court  on  appeal,

however,  reversed  the  said  findings.   The  High  Court  found  that  no

independent witness was examined.  Village Thatha is situated in the district

of  Amritsar.   The  raid  was  conducted  by  the  police  officers  of  another

district,  viz.,  Kapurthala.   Admittedly,  PW8 DSP Ashutosh had not  been

informed about the raid.  He was in the said village accidentally.   

4

10. The ladies were personally searched by the male officers in violation

of sub-section 4 of Section 50 of the Act.   

Prosecution  deliberately  introduced  ASI  Rajwinder  Kaur,  Police

Station Harike.  Although according to DSP Ashutosh PW8, there was no

lady police officer posted in the police station.   

11. The police  officers  had to  travel  for  more than eight  hours  over  a

distance of not less than 80 kms. and thus there was no reason as to why

DSP Baldev Singh PW3 could not have sent an information to the officers

of the police station, Thatha or police station, Harike for registering of a

case as per information provided to him by Gurlal Singh @ Lalli.   

12. Having been taken through the judgment of the High Court as also

other materials on record, we are of the view that it is not a fit case where

we should exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the

Constitution of India in interfering with the impugned judgment.

13. There are several infirmities in the prosecution case.  Subject to just

exceptions all offences are local.  A statement in regard to the possibility of

contraband articles likely to be found at the residence of Pargat Singh was

disclosed  by  Gurlal  Singh.   His  statement  was  not  recorded  in  writing.

Admittedly,  Pargat  Singh has  also  been arrested and in  that  view of the

5

matter  as  to  why  they  were  not  taken  to  their  village  is  beyond  any

comprehension.   The  place  of  occurrence  of  the  first  incidence  and  the

incident in question are situated at distance of 80 kms. whereas Gurlal Singh

was  arrested  at  about  7:30  p.m.  on  16-06-2000.   The  second  first

information report was lodged at 4.00 p.m.  and it was recorded  as 5.15

p.m.

14. Respondent  Gurnam Kaur  admittedly  is  an  old  lady.   Respondent

Nos.2 and 3 are her daughters-in-law.  Curiously all  of them were found

sitting on the same bed beneath whereto the contraband had allegedly been

kept.  That by itself does not establish that all of them were in conscious

possession  of  the  narcotics.   They were  not  even asked  any question  in

regard  thereto.   Prior  to  lodging  of  the  first  information  report,  the

respondents did not point out the place where the narcotics were found kept.

How the raiding party found the same has not been disclosed.  The ladies in

natural course were in their house.  No explanation has been furnished, nor

the statement  of  the respondent  was  recorded.   The investigating  officer

DSP Baldev Singh PW3 was to prove as to where contraband had been kept

not the respondents.   

15. If by a reason of statements made by an accused some facts have been

discovered, the same would be admissible against the person who had made

6

the  statement  in  terms  of  section  27  of  the  Indian  Evidence  Act.

Prosecution has not examined any independent witness.  Why independent

witnesses could not be found has not been explained.

16. ASI Rajinder Kaur who is said to have been present  has not  been

examined.  Who conducted the personal search of the ladies?  It is not the

case of the prosecution that she had searched the ladies.  Sub-section 4 of

Section 50 of the Act postulates that personal search of the ladies must be

conducted  by  a  lady  police  officer.   Curiously  PW8  in  his  evidence

categorically stated that there was no lady constable or lady officer posted at

the police station, Harike.  If that be so why participation by ASI Rajinder

Kaur was introduced is beyond anybody’s comprehension.  Personal search

of  the  accused was  conducted  by DSP Baldev  Singh which  as indicated

hereinbefore was violative of the provisions of Sub-section 4 of Section 50

of the Act.

17. It is a matter of great surprise that PW8 DSP Ashutosh, although was

not informed by DSP Baldev Singh PW3, was present in the village.  His

presence  in  the  village  is  highly  doubtful.   No  explanation  has  been

furnished as to why the first information report was lodged after 11 hours

and why the mandatory provisions of subsection 2 of Section 42 of the Act

had not been complied with.

7

18. The jurisdiction of this court to interfere with a judgment of acquittal

is limited.  When two views are possible, a judgment of acquittal should not

be interfered with.  {See Rangaiah v. State of Karnataka [2008 (16) SCALE

1]}.

19. For the reasons aforementioned we are of the opinion that no case has

been made out for interference with the impugned judgment.  The appeal is

dismissed.   

……………………………….J. [S.B. Sinha]

..…………………………..…J.     [Dr. Mukundakam Sharma]

..…………………………..…J.  [H.L. Dattu]

New Delhi; March 6, 2009

8