Harpreet Singh @ Happy v. State Of Punjab
!
"
#$
$
$% &$'
! "#$ ! !%% &'&()* + ,$
,-,# ., /0* $12/ ,$.+ .12* * ,2- , ,-,#&0& 343
,
,$
,-,#5& 6&4%7&&%
&5 54%4&%&66 5&&4% 54 % 5 5 8 6&49 %&96% %
% %% % (4&&569 % &96% ,22 4955,+- 4 954&&56 % % : &&%()5%% ; % %
#
! &&&6 4&54%4&4 9 % 8 6&&%&6 4%&444&8 65 &&6&6&&&% %54
)% 6 &4& 2-* 5&6 5&%64&65
< & 65 9 6 4& & 6 4% 44&8 6 %% 454 %%&6 4 %%&4&6 & %5 &% % &&5 &%6 &44 &6% 4& &&% && +
9& &&%
=
&& 4 &%5; 5 6%2 2%4&&&6 5&&& %%5& 54 %%&6 4 &
! " #$%
&
! " #$%
" '" ! " #$ % "( " " #$ %
! " #$%
"" "
" #$%
) " "
*+
!
" #$% $&# ' ("
"
)
* (
("
+ "
$
%&
%)
'
'
,"
-
"
!" !
' ((
"
((
((
#
!" !
((
(( #
" '
"
.
%/
( "
"
"
!
" #$% $&
0
!", -! . *+ 1 (
"
2
"
%
(
(
'
"
3 " ) !
( 2"
)
"4
(
" 2
&$
!
" # $#
"4
( " "
"
2
3 " !
(
2"
)
)( ' ((
"
!" !
((
((
#
'*
"
'
"
*
.
# '
1
" " '
' /
(
"
#
5
" 5/ 6(
7
" 7
)
"
( " 1
"
( "
'
"
/
( (
6
"
'
4"
"
/ #
(
#
'# ," "
3 " ) !
( 2"
)
0 -
% 5 6 & 4&6%5 2-* &&5& 5%4& &&6 %5 % & * ) % 5 & &455 &&6 >4 4&6&6 & %4
! $/ " #$%
"
" 0 0." " #$%
& %# '()
* ( n "State of Himachal Pradesh v Pawan Kumar (2005) 4 SCC 350 " a three judge Bench of the Apex Court held that the search of an article which was being carried by a person in his hand, or on his shoulder or head, etc., would not attract Section 50. It was held thus:
"In common parlance it would be said that a person is carrying a particular article, specifying the manner in which it was carried like hand, shoulder, back or head, etc. Therefore, it is not possible to include these articles within the ambit of the word "person" occurring in Section 50 of the Act ...After the decision in Baldev Singh, this Court has consistently held that Section 50 would only apply to search of a person and not to any bag, article or container, etc. being carried by him." ? 4% &4 %%&% %6 5& %4%>& & &&6& 4 4 &4%4
,
% & &6 % 4 4 & & %& % %& &5& %&4&"=! )/: &&04 4&& & 44 && 4 & & %4 % &%4 %%&%4%&4 &&54%
#
) &5 4&6&66465& & & % %
9& %%6 4
954&4&& %4& 5&
%4 5&5
& $'
Meenu Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No