KHET SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-2002-3-29
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: RAJASTHAN)
Decided on
March 20,2002
KHET SINGH
Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
RADHA KISHAN VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]POORAN MAL SHRI HANUMAN PERSHAD GANERWALA JAGAT RAM MAGO RAMJI DAS SHARMA VS. DIRECTOR OF INSPECTION INVESTIGA TION NEW DELHI:DIRECTOR OF INSPECTION NEW DELHI:SHRI R N LIMAYA:SHRI R N LIMAYA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. NATWARLAL DAMODARDAS SONI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. PIRTHI CHAND [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. BALDEV SINGH [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
CHARLSE HOWELL @ ABEL KOM VS. N C B [LAWS(DLH)-2018-8-216] [REFERRED TO]CUSTOM VS. JORAWAR SINGH MUNDY [LAWS(DLH)-2013-1-270] [REFERRED TO]
JAJIMOGGALA APPARAO @ SUDULA APPARAO VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2017-9-83] [REFERRED TO]
V.S. ANANDAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2013-8-11] [REFERRED TO]
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE REGIONAL UNIT MANGLORE VS. SYED REHAMAT PASHA [LAWS(KAR)-2007-12-26] [REFERRED TO]
RADHASHYAM PANIGRAHI VS. REGISTRAR (ADMN.), ORISSA HIGH COURT [LAWS(ORI)-2009-1-55] [REFERRED TO]
HARENDRA PASWAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(PAT)-2013-8-21] [REFERRED TO]
MANGI LAL VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2013-9-31] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY MALIK VS. STATE OF U.T. [LAWS(P&H)-2009-6-3] [REFERRED TO]
AWATAR SINGH SON OF KASHMIR SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2010-5-249] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR JAISWAL VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-1-12] [REFERRED TO]
SON OF MD. RAJA @ ABDUL RAZA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2015-7-199] [REFERRED TO]
AMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2012-1-396] [REFERRED]
RAJESH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2023-9-58] [REFERRED TO]
MOUKIM MEV VS. STATE [LAWS(UTN)-2009-6-26] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL HOSSAIN MAHAMMAD VS. DEPARTMENT OF CUSTOMS [LAWS(CAL)-2020-2-42] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL HOSSAIN MAHAMMAD VS. DEPARTMENT OF CUSTOMS [LAWS(CAL)-2020-2-136] [REFERRED TO]
BILAL AHMED VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2011-1-129] [REFERRED TO]
SATYABOINA CHANDRASEKHAR VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(APH)-2018-6-14] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH CHANDRA JANA VS. AJIBAR MIRDHA [LAWS(CAL)-2010-6-5] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN BANKS ASSOCIATION BOMBAY VS. DEVKALA CONSUTANCY SERVICE [LAWS(SC)-2004-4-132] [REFERRED TO]
JARMANJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2002-11-123] [REFERRED TO]
SIMARJIT KAUR @ SIMAR KAUR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2002-5-95] [REFERRED TO]
SANDEEP KUMAR VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2022-3-82] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. RAKESH KUMAR [LAWS(HPH)-2019-6-77] [REFERRED TO]
SADIQ BASHA VS. STATE BY THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER [LAWS(MAD)-2022-7-191] [REFERRED TO]
BALRAM KUMAWAT VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2003-8-2] [REFERRED]
M PRABHULAL VS. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE [LAWS(SC)-2003-9-99] [REFERRED]
HARENDRA RAUT VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2013-9-11] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESHWAR YADAV VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2013-8-14] [REFERRED TO]
MUZAFFARAHMED MOHAMMED KHALIL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR [LAWS(GJH)-2015-8-178] [REFERRED]
GURMINDER SINGH VS. DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE [LAWS(DLH)-2006-11-180] [REFERRED TO]
GUJJULA SREENU VS. CID, CHITTOOR DISTRICR [LAWS(APH)-2020-9-90] [REFERRED TO]
DAVINDER SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2022-9-132] [REFERRED TO]
BALDEV SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(ALL)-2008-9-125] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2004-7-30] [REFERRED TO]
AFZAL HAROON BATATAWALA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS [LAWS(GJH)-2012-8-380] [REFERRED TO]
YESHWANT VITHAL PATIL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2020-1-57] [REFERRED TO]
DIDAR SINGH @ DARA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2010-5-198] [REFERRED TO]
LAL BABU SAH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2002-8-110] [REFERRED TO]
AJMER SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2003-2-128] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. MAKHAN CHAND [LAWS(SC)-2004-2-80] [REFERRED TO]
HIRALAL MAHTO VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(PAT)-2013-8-3] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL SALIM ABDUL MUNAF SHAIKH ALIAS SALIMBHAI VS. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU [LAWS(GJH)-2010-1-173] [REFERRED TO]
PAVAN KUMAR AGRAWAL VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-10-20] [REFERRED TO]
MUSHTAQ AHMAD VS. STATE [LAWS(J&K)-2011-6-15] [REFERRED TO]
MANGAL DEV VS. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION [LAWS(ALL)-2005-5-109] [REFFERED TO]
N. JANGA REDDY VS. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2017-9-88] [REFERRED TO]
SHAMBHU NATH YADAV VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2015-8-23] [REFERRED TO]
SANTINI SIMONE VS. DEPARTMENT OF CUSTOMS [LAWS(DLH)-2020-10-17] [REFERRED TO]
UDAY KUMAR ABHEVARDHAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2011-7-264] [REFERRED TO]
SUCHA SINGH AND ORS. VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2015-7-50] [REFERRED TO]
JAGAT PRASAD VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2022-1-30] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. UDAI LAL [LAWS(SC)-2008-5-115] [REFERRED TO]
VIMAL KUMAR BAHL VS. DRI [LAWS(DLH)-2009-11-186] [REFERRED TO]
YUSUFBHAI ISMAILBHAI VOHRA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2019-4-259] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD.YOUNUS VS. STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS [LAWS(APH)-2018-6-83] [REFERRED TO]
HOSSAIN SK VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2023-3-66] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH KUMAR TRIPATHI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-2-11] [REFERRED TO]
ALLAUDDIN KHAN VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2015-9-7] [REFERRED TO]
GOURANGA MONDAL VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2017-3-43] [REFERRED TO]
VENKATESHWAR RAO VS. N.C.B., JODHPUR, JODHPUR [LAWS(RAJ)-2022-7-162] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2004-8-73] [REFERRED TO]
GYAN CHAND VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-2005-3-233] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2016-1-15] [REFERRED TO]
KARTHIK ALLOYS LTD VS. STATE OF GOA [LAWS(BOM)-2011-7-231] [REFERRED TO]
MANMOHAN SINGH VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2005-12-22] [REFERRED TO]
USMAN MOHAMMAD HANIF SHAIK VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2006-4-212] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD. ASAGEER VS. N.C.B [LAWS(ALL)-2022-10-6] [REFERRED TO]
ALL INDIA AIRCRAFT ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION VS. AIR INDIA ENGINEERING SERVICES LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2022-8-107] [REFERRED TO]
BETTY RAME VS. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU [LAWS(DLH)-2023-5-200] [REFERRED TO]
BHARTA RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2006-11-99] [REFERRED TO]
SURAJ SINGH DHAKAD VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2022-8-91] [REFERRED TO]
TARSEM SINGH VS. STATE [LAWS(P&H)-2006-2-458] [REFERRED TO]
SALUJA STEEL AND POWER PRIVATE LIMITED VS. DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION [LAWS(CAL)-2023-3-67] [REFERRED TO]
BISHNU SARKAR VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2017-2-14] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDAN YADAV AND ORS. VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2015-12-97] [REFERRED TO]
SATYA PRAKASH SHARMA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2007-1-168] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH PRADHAN VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2011-3-77] [REFERRED TO]
RAJANRAI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2022-10-16] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. ARVIND KUMAR [LAWS(PAT)-2022-10-16] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOM TAX VS. CANFIN HOMES LTD [LAWS(KAR)-2008-4-36] [REFERRED TO]
BIJU ALIAS SASI VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2011-8-87] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH ALIAS DURGA SINGH LODHI VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2012-2-90] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH KUMAR SAHU VS. DISTRICT JUDGE [LAWS(ORI)-2009-3-91] [REFERRED TO]
CHAINA DALAI VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2008-5-74] [REFERRED TO]
BADAN GHOSE VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2022-9-97] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF JHARKHAND VS. PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA SON OF LATE K P MISHRA [LAWS(JHAR)-2020-5-11] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY KUMAR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2012-5-28] [REFERRED TO]
R. MAKESWARAN VS. THE STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2015-9-54] [REFERRED TO]
JOINT ACTION COMMITTEE OF AIRLINES PILOTS ASSOCIATIONS OF INDIA VS. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION [LAWS(SC)-2011-5-23] [RFERRED TO]
NATI SHARMA AND ANR. VS. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH DEPARTMENT OF CUSTOMS [LAWS(PAT)-2010-4-720] [REFERRED TO]
LAXHMAN SINGH @ LACHMAN SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2011-4-468] [REFERRED]
ASHOK KUMAR PAL VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2002-8-90] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
K. G. Balakrishnan, J. -
(1.)This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan challenging the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 17, 18 and 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "NDPS Act"). Appellant had been sentenced to undergo 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh and in default of payment of fine further to undergo two years and six months' rigorous imprisonment.
(2.)Appellant Khet Singh was tried along with one Kanhaiya Lal for the aforesaid offences and Kanhaiya Lal was acquitted by the Sessions Court. The case of the prosecution is that on 6-5-1989, PW6 Shri Naraian Das Lakhara, Inspector, Customs Department, Jaisalmer, along with the Superintendent of Customs and two other Constables was proceeding on patroling and checking duty towards Ramgarh. Near Brahamsar crossing, they started checking several motor vehicles as it was suspected that there might be drug trafficking. In truck No. RJC 1472, the appellant was found sitting with a cloth basket in his hand. During the search, a polythene bag was found in the basket which contained some black substance suspected to be opium. Appellant Khet Singh and Kanhaiya Lal along with the cloth basket were brought to the office of the Customs. In the office of the Customs, the opium was seized, samples were taken from it and were sealed. Appellant and Kanhaiya Lal were questioned. The appellant stated that he had purchased the seized opium from Kanhaiya Lal. The samples were sent for chemical examination and the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory revealed that the sample was 'opium'.
(3.)The appellant contended before the trial Court that there was violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act as the search and seizure was not made in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and that the appellant was not told in advance that he had a right to demand that the search to be effected shall be in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. This plea was rejected on the ground that search and checking was being conducted of the vehicles and it was during the course of this general search that the appellant was found travelling with the opium and hence Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not applicable and that the same would apply in the case of a search on the person of the appellant. The same plea was raised before the High Court and was rightly rejected.
(2.)Appellant Khet Singh was tried along with one Kanhaiya Lal for the aforesaid offences and Kanhaiya Lal was acquitted by the Sessions Court. The case of the prosecution is that on 6-5-1989, PW6 Shri Naraian Das Lakhara, Inspector, Customs Department, Jaisalmer, along with the Superintendent of Customs and two other Constables was proceeding on patroling and checking duty towards Ramgarh. Near Brahamsar crossing, they started checking several motor vehicles as it was suspected that there might be drug trafficking. In truck No. RJC 1472, the appellant was found sitting with a cloth basket in his hand. During the search, a polythene bag was found in the basket which contained some black substance suspected to be opium. Appellant Khet Singh and Kanhaiya Lal along with the cloth basket were brought to the office of the Customs. In the office of the Customs, the opium was seized, samples were taken from it and were sealed. Appellant and Kanhaiya Lal were questioned. The appellant stated that he had purchased the seized opium from Kanhaiya Lal. The samples were sent for chemical examination and the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory revealed that the sample was 'opium'.
(3.)The appellant contended before the trial Court that there was violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act as the search and seizure was not made in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and that the appellant was not told in advance that he had a right to demand that the search to be effected shall be in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. This plea was rejected on the ground that search and checking was being conducted of the vehicles and it was during the course of this general search that the appellant was found travelling with the opium and hence Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not applicable and that the same would apply in the case of a search on the person of the appellant. The same plea was raised before the High Court and was rightly rejected.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.