The Supreme Court of India, in the case of State of Punjab vs. Gurnam @ Gama Etc., has set aside a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which had acquitted two individuals convicted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The bench, comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Augustine George Masih, held that an acquittal based solely on the technical ground that the police informant was also the investigator is unsustainable, especially since the legal precedent it relied upon has been overruled. The apex court remitted the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits.
Background of the Case
The case originates from an incident on September 20, 2009, when police, acting on secret information, intercepted a truck. Jaswinder Singh was found driving the vehicle, while Gurnam Singh alias Gama was sitting on bags in the cargo area. A search revealed 750 kilograms of poppy husk.
Following the seizure, First Information Report (FIR) No. 221 of 2009 was registered. After trial, the Trial Court, in a judgment dated December 11, 2010, convicted both Gurnam Singh and Jaswinder Singh. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12 years and to pay a fine of ₹1,00,000 each.
The convicts challenged this decision by filing criminal appeals before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. On December 11, 2018, the High Court allowed their appeals and set aside the conviction. The High Court’s decision was not based on an examination of the evidence but rested entirely on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab (2018), which held that “the informant and investigator must not be the same person” to ensure a fair investigation.
The State of Punjab subsequently filed an appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s order of acquittal.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Learned counsel for the appellant, the State of Punjab, argued that the High Court erred by relying exclusively on the Mohan Lal judgment. The counsel pointed out that a subsequent three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Varinder Kumar v. State of H.P. (2020) had clarified that the principle laid down in Mohan Lal should not “become a springboard for acquittal in prosecutions prior to the same.” The Varinder Kumar judgment held that all pending prosecutions, trials, and appeals would continue to be governed by the individual facts of the case.
Furthermore, the State’s counsel highlighted that a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Mukesh Singh v. State (Narcotics Branch of Delhi) (2020) had authoritatively overruled the Mohan Lal decision. The Constitution Bench opined that an investigation cannot be deemed biased or unfair solely because the informant was also the investigator.
On the other hand, the learned senior counsel for the respondents argued that the High Court’s judgment was correct as it was based on the law prevailing at that time, which was the Mohan Lal precedent. The counsel contended that any subsequent change in law should not have a retrospective effect to overturn their acquittal.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Ruling
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had acquitted the respondents “solely on the principle of law laid down by this Court in Mohan Lal’s case (supra)” without considering or appreciating the evidence led before the Trial Court.
The bench affirmed that while the Mohan Lal judgment was the prevailing law when the High Court decided the appeal, the legal position has since been clarified and settled. The Court referred to the decision in Varinder Kumar, which cautioned against using the Mohan Lal ratio as a blanket rule for acquittal in pending cases.
Most significantly, the Court relied on the Constitution Bench’s ruling in Mukesh Singh, which held the decision in Mohan Lal to be “not good law.” The Court quoted the operative part of the Mukesh Singh judgment:
“In a case where the informant himself is the investigator, by that itself 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… 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.”
Addressing the respondents’ argument against the retrospective application of law, the Court stated, “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 available today is to be applied.”
The Court concluded that the acquittal was granted on a technical ground based on a precedent that has been diluted and subsequently overruled. Therefore, the High Court’s judgment could not be sustained.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the State of Punjab, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration on its merits. The Court also requested the High Court to expedite the hearing, noting that the original appeals pertain to the year 2010.
