Judicial Precedent

As a Source of
Law
Aparajitha Rajesh
Maria Elizabeth Sajith
UOI vs. Raghubir
Singh
“Change is the law of
life”
 Case Parties
Civil Appeal Nos. 2839-40 of 1989 etc. From the Judgment and Order
dated 6.12. 1984 of the Delhi High Court in R.F.A. Nos. 113 and 114 of
1968. K. Parasaran, Attorney General, T.S. Krishnamurthy Iyer, B.R.L.
Iyengar, M.S. Gujaral, F.S. Nariman, A.K. Ganguli, K. Swamy, C.V. Subba
Rao, R.D. Agrawala, P. Parmeshwaran, O.P. Sharma, R.C. Gubrele, K.R.
Gupta, R.K. Sharma, K.L. Rathee, Chandulal Verma, Subhash Mittal, S.
Balakrishnan, N.B. Sinha, K.K. Gupta, Sanjiv B. Sinha, M.M. Kashyap,
P.C. Khunger, Swaraj Kaushal, Pankaj Kalra, S.K. Bagga, Ravinder
Narain, Sumeet Kachwala, S. Sukumaran, K.R. Nagaraja, S.S. Javali, Ms.
Lira Goswami, D.K. Das, B.P. Singh, Ranjit Kumar, Santosh Hegde, M.N.
Shroff, P.N. Misra, D.C. Taneja, P.K. Jena, A.K. Sanghi and M. Veerappa
for the appearing parties.
 Facts in the Case
The land belonging to the respondents was taken by compulsory
acquisition initiated by a notification under-s. 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 issued in 1959. The award with regard to
compensation was made by the Collector in 1963. A reference
under- s. 18 of the Act was disposed of by the Additional District
Judge in 1968. He enhanced the compensation. The respondents
preferred an appeal to the High Court claiming further
compensation. During the pendency of the appeal the Land
Acquisition (Amendment) Bill 1982 was introduced in Parliament
and became law as the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 .
 Judgement Given
Venkataramiah and R.B. Misra, JJ.) on 23 September, 1985,
they referred to two earlier decisions of this Court and
expressed the view that the question set forth above required
re-examination by a larger Bench of five Judges. It was further
directed that the other questions involved in the petitions
would be considered after the aforesaid question had been
resolved by the larger Bench. The two decisions referred to in
the Order of the learned Judges are K. Kamalajammanniavaru
(dead) by Lrs. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, [1985] 1
S.C.C. 582 decided by O. Chinnappa Reddy and Sabyasachi
Mukharji, JJ. on 14 February, 1985 and Bhag Singh and Ors.
v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, [1985] 3 S.C.C. 737 decided
by P.N. Bhagwati, C.J., A.N. Sen and D.P. Madon, JJ. on 14
August, 1985
 Bibliography
UOI VS RAGHUBIR SINGH
https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/7902.pdf

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1807654/
 Megh Singh Vs. State of Punjab ( AIR 2003 SC 3184)

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 452 of 2003

PETITIONER: Megh Singh
RESPONDENT: State of Punjab
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/09/2003
BENCH: DORAISWAMY RAJU & ARIJIT PASAYAT.

Others involved: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH

SINGH GILL Present: Ms. Ramanjit Kaur, Advocate for
Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.
Kirat Singh Sidhu, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Mahipal Singh Yadav,
Advocate, for respondent No.2 Harnaresh Singh Gill, J.
(Oral)
 Case Facts
The appeal preferred by appellant-Megh Singh
questioning his conviction under section 15 of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
(for short the ‘Act’) was dismissed by a learned single
Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court by the
impugned judgment. He has questioned the legality
thereof in the present appeal.
The compass of controversy as unfolded during the trial
by the prosecution is as follows:
On 22.2.1993, a police party headed by SI Chanan Singh,
in charge of police station Dharamgarh (PW 1/B) was
going on Kacha road towards drain from village
Dharamgarh in connection with patrol duty and when
they reached near the brick kiln, Santa Singh son of
Bachan Singh met them and joined in the police party.
When the police party was a little short of the drain, they
saw three persons sitting on gunny bags. Two of them
fled from the spot and the third one, accused-appellant
Megh Singh was apprehended. He disclosed the names
of the persons who had run away to be Baldev Singh and
Pillu. Twenty-five bags containing poppy husk were
found at the spot. Two samples of 250 gms. were taken
from each bag and after taking the samples, the weight
of the bags was found to be 36 kgs. 500 gms. each.
All the fifty samples and 25 bags of poppy husk were
sealed with seal ‘CS’ which after use was handed over to
HS Mithu Singh (PW-2). The case property was taken
into possession vide recovery memo exhibit PC attested
by witnesses including Santa Singh. Based on ruga
exhibit PE. F.I.R. exhibit PE/1 was registered. Baldev
Singh who had run away from the spot was arrested on
27.2.1993 and Pillu Singh was arrested on 10.3.1993.
Case property was produced before Baldev Singh, SHO
of the police station, Sunam (PW-3) who verified the
investigation and sealed the same with seal ‘BS’. On
chemical examination, the samples were found to be of
poppy husk vide report exhibit PK.
Trial court after considering the evidence on record
held that the accusations against appellant-Megh Singh
have been found established; accordingly convicted him
under section 15 of the Act and sentenced him to
undergo RI for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lac
with default condition of further RI for 1 year. The
Appellant challenged the conviction and sentence
before the High Court. The primary stand was that
accused had been arrested on 19.2.1993 and a telegram
had been sent in that regard to the police officials. It
was contended that when the benefit of the doubt has
been given to the other co-accused persons, there was
no basis for convicting the accused-appellant. There
was no material to show any conscious possession
which is the sine qua non for conviction under section
15 of the Act.
 In any event, the requirements of section 50 were not
complied with. High Court discarded the plea regarding
the arrest of Megh Singh on 19.2.1993 on the ground
that the evidence on record establishes that the
application/telegram was received on 24.2.1993 and
merely because an earlier date was indicated, it cannot
be said that the accused was arrested on 19.2.1993.
 Judgement
Coming to the plea of conscious possession it was held
that the prosecution had produced ample evidence
that the accused was in physical possession and under
terms of section 54 of the Act conscious possession
was presumed unless proved to the contrary. The
accused has failed to do so. Therefore, conscious
possession was established. Accordingly, the appeal
filed by the accused was dismissed. It was further held
that section 50 has no application because there was
no personal search of the applicant. Consequentially
conviction and sentence were upheld.
 Bibliography
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1807654/

https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/7902.pdf