State Of Punjab vs Ram Pal

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 291 OF 2004

STATE OF PUNJAB ... Appellant(s)

Versus

RAM PAL ... Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

Dr.ARIJIT PASAYAT,J.

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of acquittal recorded by a

Division Bench of the Punjab and Ahryana 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.

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

-2- 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.

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. Vs. State of H.P. 2003 (7) SCC 465. The High Court has not kept the

correct position in view.

There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent.

The expression "possession" is a polymorphous term which assumed

different colous in different contexts. It may carry different meanings in

contextually differenmt backgrounds. It is impossible, as was observed in Spdt. &

Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, W.B. Vs. 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.

The word "conscious" means awareness about a particular fact. it is a

state of mind which is deliberate or intended.

As noted in Gunwantlal Vs. State of M.P. possession in a given case need

not be physical possession but can be

-3-

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.

The word "possession" means the legal right to possession. In an

interesting case it was observed that wherea 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.

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.

Normally we would have decided the matter taking note of what is stated

in Madan Lal and Anr. Vs. State of H.P. 2003 (7) 465. 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.

-4-

The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

...................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT) ....................J. (LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA)

....................J. (P.SATHASIVAM)

New Delhi, March 26, 2009.