Precedents Can’t Be Read As Euclid’s Theorem, Must Be Applied In Context: Orissa High Court

“In relying on the said judgments, bereft of the facts in which the same were decided, learned counsel for the Petitioner lost sight of the seminal principle of interpretation of the judgment. Inasmuch as it is trite law that observations in the judgments cannot be read as “Euclid’s theorem”. It has to be applied in the given facts of a particular case.”

Factual Background

On 23.04.2021, a police team arrested the accused and recovered brown sugar weighing 1 KG and 50 grams from his possession. The said accused disclosed the name of the instant petitioner as one who sold the contraband to him for a consideration of Rs. 5,30,000/- and stated that on the same morning the petitioner and two others came in a car and handed over the contraband packet to him. He further revealed that they were habitual drug peddlers and he used to receive drugs from them at regular intervals for selling at Khurda, Bhubaneswar, Cuttack and Puri areas.

Upon receipt of such information, a team was sent to Balasore and they caught hold of the petitioner and other accused. They spotted the car which was specifically mentioned by accused and also recovered cash amounting to Rs. 5,30,000/- from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested. Subsequently, he applied for bail before the lower Court, which was rejected. Therefore, he applied for bail before the High Court.

Contentions

The counsel for the petitioner stated that his client is being victimized without considering the plausible explanation regarding source of money for which he sought to rely on documents to prove that the so-called seizure of cash is on account of an independent transaction. He also alleged that the lower Court mechanically rejected the bail application of the petitioner and did not consider his categorical stand regarding the independent transaction. To support his arguments, he relied on the rulings of the Supreme Court in Bharat Chaudhury v. Union of India, Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu and Sanjeev Chandra Agarwal v. Union of India.

On the other side, the Additional Standing Counsel for the State relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal. He submitted that the controversy regarding seizure and source of the cash is a pertinent matter to be decided in trial and cannot be decided at this stage.

Court’s Observations

At the outset, the Court observed that the recovery of the cash, which is consistent with the statement of the accused, being the cost of the contraband of brown sugar of 1 KG. 50 grams is a crucial link which cannot be lost sight of and the defence plea that such cash was for a different purpose unconnected with the alleged offence under the NDPS Act is a matter for consideration during the course of trial. Accordingly, the Court said:

“Any observation made by this Court at this stage when the learned Court in seisin is examining the same in the ongoing trial would amount to prejudging the issue against the settled principle of criminal jurisprudence.”

Further, it was of the view that petitioner’s reliance on Bharat Chaudhury (supra) is unfounded and said,

“…unlike in the case at hand there was no recovery even remotely connecting the accused in the case of Bharat Chaudhury (supra) with the offence committed. Hence, on factual matrix the case of Bharat Chaudhury (supra) has no application.”

The Bench also found that the ratio of Tofan Singh (supra) and Sanjeev Chandra Agarwal (supra) are also of no use to the petitioner. Thus, it reprimanded the counsel for the petitioner for mechanically relying upon judgments which are not even relevant for the case at hand. To discourage such practice, it cited the following observation made by the Supreme Court in Haryana Financial Corporation and another v. Jagdamba Oil Mills & Ors.,

“Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are not to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the statute. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear. Judgments of courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark upon lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statues, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes, their words are not to be interpreted as statutes.”

Having regard for the aforesaid, the bail application was dismissed.

Case Title: Sk. Jumman @ Badruddin v. State of Odisha

Case No.: BLAPL No. 7354 of 2022

Judgment Dated: 5^th January 2023

Coram: V. Narasingh, J.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. R. Sarangi, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. K.K. Gaya, Additional Standing Counsel

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 4