STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. BALDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -On 15-7-1997 when this batch of appeals/special leave petitions was placed before a two-Judge Bench, it was noticed that there was divergence of opinion between different Benches of this Court with regard to the ambit and scope of S. 50 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter 'NDPS Act') and in particular with regard to the admissibility of the evidence collected by an Investigating Officer during search and seizure conducted in violation of the provisions of S. 50 of NDPS Act. In the cases of State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh; (1994) 3 SCC 299, Ali Mustaffa Abdul Rahman Moosa v. State of Kerala (1994) 6 SCC 569; Saiyad Mohd. Saiyad Umar Saiyad v. State of Gujarat (1995) 3 SCC 610 and a number of other cases, it was laid down that failure to observe the safeguards, while conducting search and seizure, as provided by Sec. 50 would render the conviction and sentence of an accused illegal. In Ali Mustaffa's case (supra), the judgment in Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection (Investigation), New Delhi (1974) 1 SCC 345, was also considered and it was opined that the judgment in Pooran Mal's case could not be interpreted to have laid down that the contraband seized as a result of illegal search or seizure could by itself be treated as evidence of possession of the contraband to fasten liability, arising out of unlawful possession of the contraband, on the person from whom the alleged contraband had been seized during an illegal search conducted in violation of the provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act. However in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Pirthi Chand (1996) 2 SCC 37 and State of Punjab v. Labh Singh, (1996) 5 SCC 520, relying upon a judgment of this Court in Pooran Mal's case (supra), a discordant note was struck and it was held that evidence collected in a search conducted in violation of S. 50 of NDPS Act did not become inadmissible in evidence under the Evidence Act. The two-Judge Bench, therefore, on 15-7-1997, by the following order, referred the batch of cases to a larger Bench:

(2.) The batch of cases was thereafter listed before a three-Judge Bench. However, when the three-Judge Bench took up the matter, it was of the opinion that the judgment of a three-Judge Bench in Saiyad Mohd. Saiyad Umar Saiyad v. State of Gujarat (supra), required reconsideration and, therefore, the cases were required to be considered still by a larger Bench and on 19-11-1997, the three-Judge Bench made the following order:

(3.) That is how this batch of criminal appeals/special leave petitions has been placed before this Constitution Bench.