REPORTABLE

              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF  INDIA           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   

 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 860   OF 2004

STATE OF RAJASTHAN ..  APPELLANT

vs.

RATAN LAL ..  RESPONDENT

J U D  G M E N T

Dr.  ARIJIT  PASAYAT,  J.

Challenge in this appeal  is  to the order  passed by learned single  

Judge of Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur refusing to grant leave against the  

judgment of acquittal passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS cases, Udaipur.  

The  accused  faced  trial  for  alleged  commission  of  offences  

punishable  under  Sections  8  and  18  of  Narcotic  Drugs  and   Psycotropic  

Substances  Act, 1985 ( in short `NDPS Act') for being in illegal possession of

a large quantity of opium. The trial Court directed acquittal only on the ground  

that there was non-compliance with requirements of  Section 50 of the Act.  

The State filed an application for grant of leave to file appeal against such  

judgment.  The High Court dismissed  

-2-

the application holding that since there was  non-compliance of mandatory  

requirement of Section 50 of the Act and there was no need for grant of leave.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in fact the recovery

was made from a polythene bag and therefore Section 50 has no application.

There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent.

The position relating to applicability of Section 50 of the Act when  

the search is of a bag, brief case or an article it was considered by a three  

Judge Bench of this Court in (2005) 4 SCC 350 (State of H.P. vs. Pawan Kumar  

and State of Rajastha vs. Bhanwar Lal) in para 7, 8 10, 11 and 27 in Pawan  

Kumar's case it was held as follows:

“7. The  word  "person"  has  not  been  defined  in  the  Act.  Section 2(xxix) of the Act says that the words and expressions used  herein  and  not  defined  but  defined  in  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure have the meanings respectively assigned to them in that  Code.   The Code of Criminal Procedure, however, does not define  the word "person".   Section 2(y) of the Code says that the words  and expressions  used therein  and not defined but  defined in the  Indian Penal Code have the meanings respectively assigned to them  in that Code.    Section 11 of the Indian Penal Code says that the  word  "person"  includes  any Company or  Association  or  body of  persons whether incorporated or not.   Similar definition of the word  "person" has been given in Section 3(42)  of  the General  Clauses  Act.   Therefore, these definitions render no assistance for resolving  the controversy in hand.   

-3-

8 One  of  the  basic  principles  of  interpretation  of  Statutes  is  to  construe them according to plain, literal and grammatical meaning  of  the  words.    If  that  is  contrary  to,  or  inconsistent  with,  any  

express intention or declared purpose of the Statute, or if it would  involve  any  absurdity,  repugnancy  or  inconsistency,  the  grammatical sense must then be modified, extended or abridged, so  far as to avoid such an inconvenience, but no further.   The onus of  

showing that the words do not mean what they say lies heavily on  the  party who  alleges  it.    He  must  advance something  which  clearly  shows  that  the  grammatical  construction  would  be  repugnant to the intention of the Act or lead to some manifest  absurdity (See Craies on Statute Law, Seventh Edn. page 83-85).  In the well  known treatise - Principles of Statutory Interpretation  by  Justice  G.P.  Singh,  the  learned  author  has  enunciated  the  same principle that the words of the Statute are first understood  in  their  natural,  ordinary  or  popular  sense  and  phrases  and  sentences are construed according to their grammatical meaning,  unless that leads to some absurdity or unless there is something

in  the  context  or  in  the  object  of  the  Statute  to  suggest  the  contrary (See  the  Chapter  -  The  Rule  of  Literal  Construction  -  page 78,  Ninth Edn.).  This Court has also followed this principle  right  from  the  beginning.   In  Jugalkishore  Saraf   v.  M/s  Raw  Cotton Co. Ltd. AIR 1955 SC 376, S.R. Das, J. said: (SCR p.1374)

"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 catena of subsequent decisions have followed the same  

line.   It,  therefore,  becomes  necessary  to  look  to  dictionaries  to  ascertain the correct meaning of the word "person".

-4-

10. We are not concerned here with the wide definition of the word  "person",  which  in  the  legal  world  includes  corporations,  associations  or  body of  individuals  as  factually  in  these  type  of  cases search of their premises can be done and not of their person.  Having regard to the scheme of the Act and the context in which it  has been used in the Section it naturally means a human being or a  living individual unit and not an artificial person.   The word has to  be understood in a broad commonsense manner and, therefore, not  a naked or nude body of a human being but the manner in which a  normal  human  being  will  move  about  in  a  civilized  society.  Therefore,  the  most  appropriate  meaning  of  the  word  "person"  appears to be - "the body of a human being as presented to public  view usually with  its  appropriate coverings and clothings".    In a  civilized society appropriate coverings and clothings are considered  absolutely essential and no sane human being comes in the gaze of  

others  without  appropriate  coverings  and  clothings.   The  appropriate coverings will  include footwear  also as normally it  is  considered  an  essential  article  to  be  worn  while  moving outside  one's home.   Such appropriate coverings or clothings or footwear,  after  being  worn,  move along  with  the  human body without  any  appreciable or extra effort.   Once worn, they would not normally get  detached from the body of the human being unless some specific  effort in that direction is made.  For interpreting the provision, rare  cases of some religious monks and sages,  who,  according to the  tenets of their religious belief do not cover their body with clothings,  are not to be taken notice of.  Therefore, the word "person" would  mean a human being with appropriate coverings and clothings and  also footwear.

10.   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  

-5-

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.    

27. Coming  to  the  merits  of  the  appeal,  the  High  Court

allowed the appeal on the finding that the report of the Chemical  Examiner had to be excluded and that there was non compliance  of Section 50 of the Act.   The learned Judges of this Court, who  heard the appeal earlier, have recorded a unanimous opinion that  the report of the Chemical Examiner was admissible in evidence  and  could  not  be  excluded.    In  view of  the  discussion  made  earlier, Section 50 of the Act can have no application on the facts  and circumstances of the present case as opium was allegedly  recovered from the bag, which was being carried by the accused.  The High Court did not examine the testimony of the witnesses  and other evidence on merits. Accordingly, the matter has to be  remitted back to the High Court for a fresh hearing of the appeal.”

In the instant case, the High Court has not considered the true effect  

of Section 50 of the Act.  It would be appropriate to direct  the High Court to  

hear the appeal on merits. Leave to appeal is granted to the appellant-State to  

file the appeal which shall now be heard by the High Court on merits.

-6-

The appeal is allowed.

                          ................ .J.               (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

     ...................J.

                                       (D.K. JAIN)

          .....................J.                                        (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA) New Delhi, March 31, 2009.