Supreme Court of India
STATE OF PUNJABversusGURNAM @ GAMA ETC.
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 960
- Decided
- 30 July 2025
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
The Supreme Court overruled the High Court's acquittal, holding that the Mohan Lal principle has been overruled and cannot be the sole basis for acquittal in pending appeals.
Summary
The respondents were convicted under the NDPS Act for transporting 750 kg of poppy husk after a seizure in 2009. They appealed their convictions, and the High Court acquitted them, relying solely on the principle from Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab that an informant cannot also be the investigator. The State of Punjab challenged this acquittal, arguing that subsequent judgments—Varinder Kumar, which limited the retrospective effect of Mohan Lal, and Mukesh Singh, which overruled Mohan Lal—rendered the High Court's reliance untenable. The Supreme Court held that the Mohan Lal principle is no longer good law and that pending appeals must be decided according to the law as it stands today. Consequently, the High Court's judgment was set aside, the appeals were allowed, and the matter was remitted to the High Court for a merits-based trial.
Issues considered
- The applicability of the Mohan Lal principle (informant must not be the investigator) to appeals pending after that judgment.
- The effect of the Varinder Kumar clarification on the retrospective operation of Mohan Lal.
- The impact of the Mukesh Singh Constitution Bench decision overruling Mohan Lal on the validity of the High Court's acquittal.
- Whether an acquittal based solely on a principle later overruled can stand.
- Whether appeals are continuations of proceedings and must be decided according to the law in force at the time of decision.
Legislation cited
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Issue arose to assail the correctness of the judgment of the High Court by which the criminal appeals filed by the respondents were allowed and the judgment of the Trial Court convicting the respondents was set aside relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Punjab, 2018 INSC 714. Headnotes† Criminal Law – Administration of the criminal justice – Acquittal on technical grounds by the High Court – Application of law available today – Respondents were convicted by the Trial Court – High Court allowed the appeal and
Subjects
Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab caseMukesh Singh v. State (Narcotics Branch of Delhi)Appeals are continuation of proceedingsAcquittal on technical groundsLaw available todayInformant investigator principle
Judgment
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 2053 : 2025 INSC 960
State of Punjab
v.
Gurnam @ Gama Etc.
(Criminal Appeal No(s). 2836-2837 of 2025)
30 July 2025
[Rajesh Bindal and
Augustine George Masih, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose to assail the correctness of the judgment of the High
Court by which the criminal appeals filed by the respondents
were allowed and the judgment of the Trial Court convicting the
respondents was set aside relying upon the judgment of this Court
in the case of Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab, 2018 INSC 714.
Headnotes†
Criminal Law – Administration of the criminal justice – Acquittal
on technical grounds by the High Court – Application of law
available today – Respondents were convicted by the Trial
Court – High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the
respondents – Acquittal was solely on the principle of law
laid down by this Court in Mohan Lal’s case – Informant and
investigator must not be the same person – Reliance upon
Mohan Lal’s case – Correctness:
Held: The judgment in Mohan Lal’s case was delivered by
this Court on 16th August, 2018 – The High Court judgment in
favor of the respondents is dated 11th December, 2018 – After
the judgment of the Mohan Lal’s case, a three-Judge Bench of
this Court in Varinder Kumar’s case clarified the position with
reference to Mohan Lal’s case – Further, the opinion expressed
in Mohan Lal’s case was doubted and the matter was referred to
the Constitution Bench (Mukesh Singh’s case) where the opinion
expressed by this Court in Mohan Lal’s case was held to be not
a good law and overruled – In the case in hand, the judgment
of Mohan Lal’s case 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
2054 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 which was diluted in Varinder Kumar’s case
and then overruled subsequently by the Constitution Bench of
this Court in Mukesh Singh’s case – Hence, impugned judgment
of the High Court is set aside – Matter remitted back to the High
Court for consideration on merits. [Paras 13, 15-17]
Case Law Cited
Mukesh Singh v. State (Narcotics Branch of Delhi), 2020 INSC
524 : [2020] 9 SCR 245 : (2020) 10 SCC 120 – followed.
Varinder Kumar v. State of H.P., 2019 INSC 170 : [2019] 2 SCR
707 : (2020) 3 SCC 321 – relied on.
Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab, 2018 INSC 714 : [2018] 9 SCR
1006 : (2018) 17 SCC 627 – referred to.
List of Acts
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Indian
Penal Code, 1860; Punjab Good Conduct Prisons Temporary
Release Act, 1962.
List of Keywords
Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab case; Mukesh Singh v. State (Narcotics
Branch of Delhi); Appeals are continuation of proceedings; Acquittal
on technical grounds; Law available today.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No(s).
2836-2837 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.12.2018 of the High Court of
Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRA Nos. 12 and 786 of 2011
Appearances for Parties
Adv. for the Appellant:
Ms. Nupur Kumar.
Advs. for the Respondents:
D. N. Goburdhan, Sr. Adv., T. N. Singh, Dr. Sham Chand.
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 2055
State of Punjab v. Gurnam @ Gama Etc.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
(1) The appellant-State of Punjab is before this Court impugning the
judgment of the High Court1 by which the criminal appeals2 filed
by the respondents were allowed3 and the judgment4 of the Trial
Court5 convicting the respondents was set aside. It relied upon the
judgment of this Court in the case of Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab6
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 information was received
on 20th 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 and
vide judgment dated 11th 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.
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 INSC 714 : (2018) 17 SCC 627
2056 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(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 after the judgment
of this Court in Mohan Lal’s case (supra), in the case of Varinder
Kumar v. State of H.P.7, 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 fact, the appeals were decided on 11th
December, 2018 i.e. after the aforesaid judgment was delivered on
16th August, 2018.
(6) She has further referred to a Constitution Bench judgment of this
Court in the case of Mukesh Singh v. State (Narcotics Branch of
Delhi)8, delivered on 31st 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 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
7 2019 INSC 170 : (2020) 3 SCC 321
8 2020 INSC 524 : (2020) 10 SCC 120
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 2057
State of Punjab v. Gurnam @ Gama Etc.
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
S.No. FIR Details Relevant Recovery Status
Sections
1. FIR 467 dated 15 of NDPS - -
01.12.2003 at PS Act, 1985
Jhajjar, Haryana
2. FIR 75 dated 15 of NDPS 69 Kg Poppy Acquitted on
06.05.2008 at PS Act, 1985 Husk 30.11.2010
Noor Mehal District
Jalandhar, Punjab
3. FIR 221 dated 15 of NDPS 730 Kg Convicted on
20.09.2009 at PS act, 1985 Poppy Husk 11.12.2010
Division 08, District by Judge
Jalandhar Punjab Special Court,
Jalandhar,
Acquitted and
released on
11.12.2018 by
Hon’ble High
Court
4. FIR 16 dated 15 of NDPS 240 Kg Acquitted on
18.02.2012 at PS act, 1985 Poppy Husk 09.11.2015
Noor Mehal District
Jalandhar Punjab
5. FIR 95 dated 8(2), 9 - Convicted on
22.12.2012 at PS Punjab Good 22.10.2014
Noor Mehal District Conduct
Jalandhar Punjab Prisons act
Temporary
Release Act,
1962
2058 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
6. FIR 166 dated 15 of NDPS 1200 Kg Convicgted on
20.06.2013 at PS act, 1985 Poopy Husk 28.07.2016
Phguillaur District
Jalandhar Punjab
7. FIR 86 dated 15 of NDPS 08 Kg 500 g Convicted on
10.09.2013 at PS act, 1985 Poppy Husk 09.11.2015
Noor Mehal District
Jalandhar Punjab
8. FIR 101 dated 15 of NDPS 1120 Kg Acquitted on
14.10.2015 at Act, 1985 Poppy Husk 09.11.2016
PS Bilga District
Jalandhar Punjab
9. FIR 43 dated 379, 411 of - Acquitted on
27.03.2013 at PS IPC, 1860 05.03.2016
Adampur District
Jalandhar Punjab
10. FIR 248 dated 353, 186, - Convicted on
29.08.14 at PS 332 of IPC, 06.10.2016
Phillaur, District 1860
Jalandhar {unjab
11. FIR 14 dated 15 of NDPS 270 Kg. Under Trial
03.02.2017 at PS Act, 1985 Poppy Husk 01.07.2017
Khamano District
Fatehgarh Sahib
Punjab
12. FIR 116 dated 52 A Prison - Convicted on
02.06.2016 at PS Act 22.09.16
Kotwali District
Kapurthala, Punjab
13. FIR 143 dated 21(c) NDPS - Lodged in
23.10.2020 at PS Act, 1985 Hoshiarpur
Chabbewal, District Jail
Hoshiarpur, Punjab
14. FIR 20 dated 21(a), 22(b), 4g Heroin, Under Trial
25.03.2021 at PS 29 of NDPS 170 08.07.2021
Noor Mehal District Act, 1985 Intoxicant
Jalandhar Punjab Tablets
(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.
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 2059
State of Punjab v. Gurnam @ Gama Etc.
(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 case (supra) was delivered
on 16th 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 dated 11th 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 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 delivered by this
Court on 16th August, 2018. The High Court judgment in favor of
the respondents is dated 11th 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
2060 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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 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
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 2061
State of Punjab v. Gurnam @ Gama Etc.
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 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.
Result of the case: Appeals allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab case"Sign in to search