State of Punjab Vs. Ram Pal
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 291 of 2004
[From the Judgement and Order dated 25.02.2003 of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Appeal No. 441-DB/2002]
[From the Judgement and Order dated 25.02.2003 of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Appeal No. 441-DB/2002]
Petitioner: State of Punjab
Respondent: Ram Pal
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 291 of 2004
[From the Judgement and Order dated 25.02.2003 of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Appeal No. 441-DB/2002]
[From the Judgement and Order dated 25.02.2003 of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Appeal No. 441-DB/2002]
Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, Lokeshwar Singh Panta & P. Sathasivam, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 26, 2009
Appearances:
Appearances
Mr. Kuldip Singh, Mr. R.K. Pandey, Mr. T.P. Mishra and Mr. Sanjay Katyal, Advocates for the Appellant.
Mr. Kuldip Singh, Mr. R.K. Pandey, Mr. T.P. Mishra and Mr. Sanjay Katyal, Advocates for the Appellant.
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAWS
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Sections 15, 25, 35, 54 – Conviction under Section 25 – Acquittal by High Court as conscious possession not established – Effect of decision in Madan Lal’s case not considered – In appeal respondent-accused not represented. Held, matter remanded to High Court for consideration in light of Madan Lal’s case. (Para 10)
Words & Phrases
Words ‘Conscious’ & ‘Possession’ – Meaning – Explained. (Paras 7-8)
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Sections 15, 25, 35, 54 – Conviction under Section 25 – Acquittal by High Court as conscious possession not established – Effect of decision in Madan Lal’s case not considered – In appeal respondent-accused not represented. Held, matter remanded to High Court for consideration in light of Madan Lal’s case. (Para 10)
Words & Phrases
Words ‘Conscious’ & ‘Possession’ – Meaning – Explained. (Paras 7-8)
Cases Reffered:
1. Madan Lal and Anr. v. State of H.P. [2003 (7) SCC 465] (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of acquittal recorded by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court directing acquittal of the respondent who faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short ‘Act’). He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 11 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- with default stipulation by the learned Single Judge, Patiala.
2. So far as co-accused Amrik Singh is concerned, he was convicted under Section 15 of the Act and was awarded the same sentence. Two separate appeals were filed. It needs to be mentioned here that respondent Ram Pal was also charged for offence punishable under Section 15 of the Act but in view of the conviction recorded in respect of Section 25 of the Act no sentence was awarded. Therefore, no separate sentence was imposed in respect of accusation relatable to Section 15 of the Act. The High Court primarily directed acquittal on the ground that conscious possession has not been established.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that the position in law relating to conscious possession has been dealt with in detail by this Court in Madan Lal and Anr. v. State of H.P. [2003 (7) SCC 465]. The High Court has not kept the correct position in view.
4. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent.
5. The expression ‘possession’ is a polymorphous term which assumed different colours in different contexts. It may carry different meanings in contextually different backgrounds. It is impossible, as was observed in Spdt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, W.B. v. Anil Kumar Bhujja to work out a completely logical and precise definition of ‘possession’ uniformally applicable to all situations in the context of all statues.
6. The word ‘conscious’ means awareness about a particular fact. It is a state of mind which is deliberate or intended.
7. As noted in Gunwantlal v. State of M.P. possession in a given case need not be physical possession but can be constructive, having power and control over the article in the case in question, while the person to whom physical possession is given holds it subject to that power or control.
8. The word ‘possession’ means the legal right to possession. In an interesting case it was observed that where a person keeps his firearm in his mother’s flat which is safer than his own home, he must be considered to be in possession of the same.
9. Once possession is established, the person who claims that it was not a conscious possession has to establish it, because how he came to be in possession is within his special knowledge. Section 35 of the Act gives a statutory recognition of this position because of the presumption available in law. Similar is the position in terms of Section 54 where also presumption is available to be drawn from possession of illicit articles.
10. Normally we would have decided the matter taking note of what is stated in Madan Lal and Anr. v. State of H.P. (supra). But the respondent is not represented and, therefore, we deem it proper to set aside the impugned judgment and remit the matter to the High Court afresh in the light of what is stated by this court in Madan Lal case (supra). The present judgment will cover the case of accused Ram Pal only.
11. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
***********
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of acquittal recorded by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court directing acquittal of the respondent who faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short ‘Act’). He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 11 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- with default stipulation by the learned Single Judge, Patiala.
2. So far as co-accused Amrik Singh is concerned, he was convicted under Section 15 of the Act and was awarded the same sentence. Two separate appeals were filed. It needs to be mentioned here that respondent Ram Pal was also charged for offence punishable under Section 15 of the Act but in view of the conviction recorded in respect of Section 25 of the Act no sentence was awarded. Therefore, no separate sentence was imposed in respect of accusation relatable to Section 15 of the Act. The High Court primarily directed acquittal on the ground that conscious possession has not been established.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that the position in law relating to conscious possession has been dealt with in detail by this Court in Madan Lal and Anr. v. State of H.P. [2003 (7) SCC 465]. The High Court has not kept the correct position in view.
4. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent.
5. The expression ‘possession’ is a polymorphous term which assumed different colours in different contexts. It may carry different meanings in contextually different backgrounds. It is impossible, as was observed in Spdt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, W.B. v. Anil Kumar Bhujja to work out a completely logical and precise definition of ‘possession’ uniformally applicable to all situations in the context of all statues.
6. The word ‘conscious’ means awareness about a particular fact. It is a state of mind which is deliberate or intended.
7. As noted in Gunwantlal v. State of M.P. possession in a given case need not be physical possession but can be constructive, having power and control over the article in the case in question, while the person to whom physical possession is given holds it subject to that power or control.
8. The word ‘possession’ means the legal right to possession. In an interesting case it was observed that where a person keeps his firearm in his mother’s flat which is safer than his own home, he must be considered to be in possession of the same.
9. Once possession is established, the person who claims that it was not a conscious possession has to establish it, because how he came to be in possession is within his special knowledge. Section 35 of the Act gives a statutory recognition of this position because of the presumption available in law. Similar is the position in terms of Section 54 where also presumption is available to be drawn from possession of illicit articles.
10. Normally we would have decided the matter taking note of what is stated in Madan Lal and Anr. v. State of H.P. (supra). But the respondent is not represented and, therefore, we deem it proper to set aside the impugned judgment and remit the matter to the High Court afresh in the light of what is stated by this court in Madan Lal case (supra). The present judgment will cover the case of accused Ram Pal only.
11. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
***********
