Mohan Lal Case Overruled; Law As Available Today Is To Be Applied: Supreme Court Sets Aside Acquittal Of NDPS Accused

The Supreme Court, while setting aside acquittal of the accused in NDPS case, noted that Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab case has been subsequently overruled and that the law as available today is to be applied while considering appeal.

The Court was considering an Appeal against the judgment of the High Court by which the Criminal Appeals filed by the Respondents were allowed and the judgment of the Trial Court convicting the Respondents was set aside.

The division bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Augustine George Masih observed, "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."

The Appellant was represented by Advocate-on-Record Nupur Kumar while the Respondent was represented by Senior Advocate D. N. Goburdhan.

Facts of the Case

The Respondents were convicted in a drug case and were directed to undergo RI for a period of 12 years and to pay a fine of ₹1,00,000/- each. When the Appeals were taken up by the High Court for hearing, relying upon the judgment of the Court in the case of Mohan Lal’s case (supra) and without discussing the merits of the controversy, the same were allowed.

Counsel for the Appellant submitted that after the judgment in Mohan Lal’s case (supra), in the case of Varinder Kumar v. State of H.P., a three Judge Bench of the Supreme 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. He thus averred that 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).

She further referred to a Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Mukesh Singh v. State (Narcotics Branch of Delhi) (2020) wherein reference was made to a larger Bench regarding correctness of the judgment in Mohan Lal’s case (supra) and it was observed 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. It was submitted that in the case in hand, the acquittal by the High Court was solely on the ground that investigator and the prosecutor was the same person.

On the other hand, 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. It was thus further submitted any subsequent opinion by the Court cannot have retrospective operation and hence the acquittal of the Respondents cannot be turned down.

Reasoning By Court

The Court 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.

"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", the Court observed.

On the argument of the Senior Counsel for the Respondents that any judgment will not have retrospective effect, the Court opined that nothing hinges on that and further observed, "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 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)."

The Appeal was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: State of Punjab vs. Gurnam

Appearances:

Appellant- Advocate-on-Record Nupur Kumar

Respondent- Senior Advocate D. N. Goburdhan, Advocate-on-Record T. N. Singh, Advocate Dr. Sham Chand

Click here to read/ download Order