Supreme Court of India
STATE OF RAJASTHANversusRATAN LAL
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 428
- Decided
- 31 March 2009
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
A bag, briefcase or any such container cannot be treated as a "person" under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, and therefore the provision does not apply to searches of such articles.
Summary
The accused, Ratan Lal, was found in possession of a bag containing a large quantity of opium. The trial court acquitted him on the ground that the mandatory requirements of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 were not complied with, and the High Court refused the State’s request for leave to appeal. The State appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that a bag or briefcase cannot be treated as a "person" under Section 50. Relying on the earlier decision in State of H.P. v. Pawan Kumar, the Court held that the term "person" in Section 50 refers to a human being with clothing and cannot include containers such as bags. Consequently, Section 50 was inapplicable to the facts, and the High Court’s refusal to grant leave was erroneous. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, granted leave to the State to file an appeal, and remitted the matter to the High Court for a fresh hearing on merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the term "person" in Section 50 of the NDPS Act includes a bag, briefcase or any other container.
- Whether non‑compliance with Section 50 is a valid ground for acquittal when contraband is recovered from a bag carried by the accused.
- Whether the High Court was justified in refusing leave to appeal against the acquittal.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985s. 18, s. 50, s. 8
Subjects
NDPS ActSection 50search and seizureinterpretation of "person"container vs. personappealstatutory interpretation
Judgment
[2009] 7 S.C.R. 227
" STATE OF RAJASTHAN A
V.
RATAN LAL
Criminal Appeal No. 860 of 2004
MARCH 31, 2009.
B
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, D.K. JAIN AND DR.
MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ)
•
NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUB-
STANCES ACT, 1985:
c
s. 50 - Search of 'person' of suspect -Accused found in
possession of a bag containing opium - Prosecution -
Acquittal by trial court for non-compliance with requirement of
s.50 - High Court refusing leave to State Government to file
.. appeal - HELD: A bag, briefcase or any such article or
D
container etc. cannot be treated as body of human being -
High Court has not considered true effect of s. 50 - Leave
granted to State Government to file appeal, which shall be
heard by High Court on merits.
' The respondent was found in possession of a bag E
containing a large quantity of opium. The trial court
acquitted him on the ground that requirements of s.50 of
_,.
the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985 were not complied with. Subscribing to the said view,
the High Court refused leave to the State Government to F
file appeal.
Allowing the appeal of the State, the Court
HELD : In view of this Court's decision in Pawan
Kumar*, a bag, briefcase or any such article or container G
etc. can, under no circumstances, be treated as body of a
human being. The High Court has not considered the true
~
effect of s.50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985. Leave is granted to the State
227 H
228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS · [2009] 7 S.C.R.
A Government to file appeal, which shall be heard by the
High Court on merits. [para 5 and 6] [229-8; 232-E]
State of H.P vs. Pawan Kumar 2005 (3) SCR 417 =
(2005) 4 sec 350 - relied on.
B Case Law Reference
2005 (3) SCR 417 relied on para 5
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 860 of 2004
C From the Judgement and Order dated 27.02.2004 of the
Hoil'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in
S.B. Crl. Leave to Appeal No. 52 of 2004.
Rishi Malhotra, Milind Kumar, for the Appellant.
•
D The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by
learned single Judge of Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur
E refusing to grant leave against the judgment of acquittal passed
by learned Special Judge, NDPS cases, Udaipur.
2. 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')
F 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 the application holding
G that since there was non-compliance of mandatory requirement
of Section 50 of the Act and there was no need for grant of leave.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in fact
the recovery was made from a polythene bag and therefore
H Section 50 has no application.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN V. RATAN LAL 229
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
.... 4. There is no appea rance on beh~lf of the respondent. A
5. 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
sec 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 B
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 c
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
~
D
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 E
Act. Therefore, these definitions render no assistance for
resolving the controversy in hand.
8. One of the basic principles of interpretation of Statutes
is to construe them according ·to plain , literal and F
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
G
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
H
230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R.
A 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
B 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
c - 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
D 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
E 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".
F
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
G
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
H
STATE OF RAJASTHAN V. RATAN LAL 231
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
human being but the manner in which a normal human A
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 B
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 c
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
0
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. E
11. 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 F
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 G
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
H
232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 7 S.C.R.
A 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
8 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
c 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
D 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."
6. In the instant case, the High Court has not considered
E 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.
7. The appeal is allowed.
RP. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "NDPS Act"Sign in to search