Raju @ Surendar Nath Sonkar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Single Judge)

Criminal Appeal, 5610 of 2019, Judgment Date: Dec 08, 2020

Law laid down -

1. Indian Evidence Act,1872 - Independent prosecution witnesses/witnesses about the search memo turned hostile. The police officer (PW/4) alone supported the Panchnama. His statement could not be demolished during cross examination. The conviction can be recorded solely on the basis of a credible statement of police officer. The evidence of official witness cannot be distrusted and disbelieved merely on account of his official status.

2. Interpretation of statute - (i) A statute must be read as a whole in its context.

(ii) The courts always presumed that Legislature inserted every part of statute for a purpose and the legislative intention is that every part of the statute should have effect

(iii) The Legislature is deemed not to waste its words or to say anything in vain.

(iv) The rule that a meaning should, if possible, be given to every word in the statute implies that, unless there is good reason to the contrary, the words add something which would not be there if the words were left out.

(v) If language of statute is clear and unambiguous, it has to be given effect to, irrespective of its consequences.

3. Section 50 of NDPS Act - the expression “if such person so requires” needs to be given full meaning and effect. If accused person has been informed about his right to be searched before the Gazetted Officer or Magistrate and gives consent to be searched by the police officer, the necessary requirement of Sub-section (1) of Section 50 of NDPS Act is satisfied and no fault can be found in the search.

Raju @ Surendar Nath Sonkar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh