The State Of Punjab vs Gurnam @ Gama Etc

2025 INSC 960 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.2836-2837 OF 2025

STATE OF PUNJAB ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

GURNAM @ GAMA ETC. ...Respondent(s)

O R D E R

(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

1 High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh 2 CRA No.12/2011 and CRA No.786/2011 3 Dated 11.12.2018 Signature Not Verified

4 Dated 11.12.2010 Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2025.08.12 5 Challan No.322 of 2010 15:44:42 IST Reason:

6 (2018) 17 SCC 627 : 2018 INSC 714

1 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.

(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

2 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

7(2020) 3 SCC 321 : 2019 INSC 170 8(2020) 10 SCC 120 : 2020 INSC 524

3 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 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 01.12.2003 15 of NDPS - -

at PS Jhajjar, Haryana Act, 1985

2. FIR 75 dated 06.05.2008 15 of NDPS 69 Kg Poppy Husk Acquitted on at PS Noor Mehal District Act, 1985 30.11.2010

4 Jalandhar, Punjab

3. FIR 221 dated 20.09.2009 15 of NDPS 730 Kg Poppy Husk Convicted on at PS Division 08, District act, 1985 11.12.2010 by Jalandhar Punjab Judge Special Court, Jalandhar, Acquitted and released on 11.12.2018 by Hon’ble High Court

4. FIR 16 dated 18.02.2012 15 of NDPS 240 Kg Poppy Husk Acquitted on at PS Noor Mehal District act, 1985 09.11.2015 Jalandhar Punjab

5. FIR 95 dated 22.12.2012 8(2), 9 Punjab - Convicted on at PS Noor Mehal District Good Conduct 22.10.2014 Jalandhar Punjab Prisons act Temporary Release Act, 1962

6. FIR 166 dated 20.06.2013 15 of NDPS 1200 Kg Poopy Husk Convicgted on at PS Phguillaur District act, 1985 28.07.2016 Jalandhar Punjab

7. FIR 86 dated 10.09.2013 15 of NDPS 08 Kg 500 g Poppy Convicted on at PS Noor Mehal District act, 1985 Husk 09.11.2015 Jalandhar Punjab

8. FIR 101 dated 14.10.2015 15 of NDPS 1120 Kg Poppy Husk Acquitted on at PS Bilga District Act, 1985 09.11.2016 Jalandhar Punjab

9. FIR 43 dated 27.03.2013 379, 411 of - Acquitted on at PS Adampur District IPC, 1860 05.03.2016 Jalandhar Punjab

10. FIR 248 dated 29.08.14 at 353, 186, 332 - Convicted on PS Phillaur, District of IPC, 1860 06.10.2016 Jalandhar {unjab

11. FIR 14 dated 03.02.2017 15 of NDPS 270 Kg. Poppy Husk Under Trial at PS Khamano District Act, 1985 01.07.2017 Fatehgarh Sahib Punjab

12. FIR 116 dated 02.06.2016 52 A Prison - Convicted on at PS Kotwali District Act 22.09.16 Kapurthala, Punjab

13. FIR 143 dated 23.10.2020 21(c) NDPS - Lodged in at PS Chabbewal, District Act, 1985 Hoshiarpur Jail Hoshiarpur, Punjab

14. FIR 20 dated 25.03.2021 21(a), 22(b), 4g Heroin, 170 Under Trial at PS Noor Mehal District 29 of NDPS Intoxicant Tablets 08.07.2021 Jalandhar Punjab Act, 1985

5 (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.

(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

6 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 11 th 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 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

7 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

8 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 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

9 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.

..........................J. (RAJESH BINDAL)

..........................J. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)

NEW DELHI;

July 30, 2025

10