Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PANKAJ MITHAL, PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.
The State of Himachal Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Surat Singh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2018
Decided On : 16-03-2026
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 20 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 378 – Seizure of Charas – Acquittal against acquittal – Appellants were merely asked to give their consent for search by police party and not apprised of their legal right provided under Section 50 of NDPS Act – Oral testimony of witnesses clearly established that Investigating Officer took departure from provisions of law and on the contrary committed an act which is clearly contrary to provisions of law – There was no electronic weighing scale available in shop and he was using only traditional weighing scale as such story of prosecution that an electronic weighing scale was used for weighing contraband article Charas falls flat on face of it and version of prosecution and story of prosecution becomes doubtful and ultimately unacceptable – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 17, 18 and 19)
Facts of the case:
Present criminal appeal arises out of a judgement and order dated 08.10.2015 passed by High Court of Himachal Pradesh vide Cr. Appeal No. 155 of 2015 wherein judgment of conviction and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, rendered by the learned Special Judge-I, Shimla, H.P, in Sessions trial No. 21-S/7 of 2013, dated 31.12.2014 was set aside. Prosecution has failed to prove the case against accused for commission of offence under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Accused was acquitted of the charges framed against him.
Findings of Court:
High Court committed no error in appreciating submissions and also assessing evidence brought before Trial Court in its proper perspective.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Statutes Discussed
• Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 20 (!)
• Section 50 of NDPS Act, regarding the legal right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate (!) , (!) , (!) , (!)
• Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 378 (appeal process) (!)
• Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 313 (statement of accused) (!) , (!)
Relevance: These statutes are central to understanding the legal framework discussed in the judgment, especially regarding search procedures and rights under the NDPS Act, directly addressing the legal query about basic legal provisions.
Case Laws Discussed
• State of Rajasthan versus Parmanand and Anr. (!)
• Suresh and others versus State of Madhya Pradesh (!)
• State of Rajasthan Versus Kistoora Ram (!)
Relevance: These cases are referenced to support legal principles about search procedures, evidentiary standards, and the burden of proof, which are relevant to understanding the legal context.
Ratio Decidendi
• The court held that the search and seizure were conducted in violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act because the accused was not properly informed of his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, rendering the trial illegal and the evidence inadmissible (!) , (!) , (!) , (!) .
• The failure to strictly comply with Section 50's provisions invalidates the legality of the search and seizure, which is a fundamental aspect of the prosecution's case (!) .
Relevance: This reasoning is directly related to the legal rights of individuals during search procedures under the NDPS Act, which is a core element of the legal framework discussed.
Court Observations
• The court observed that the police provided the accused with an option for search but did not inform him of his right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, which is mandatory (!) , (!) .
• The court noted that the oral evidence established the absence of an electronic weighing scale in the shop, casting doubt on the prosecution’s story about weighing the contraband (!) .
• The court emphasized that the departure from legal procedures in search and seizure invalidates the evidence and the trial (!) .
Relevance: These observations highlight the importance of procedural compliance and the impact of procedural lapses on the validity of evidence, relevant to understanding basic legal protections.
Final Conclusion
• The court dismissed the appeal, upheld the High Court's decision, and acquitted the accused, ruling that the search and seizure were illegal due to non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, thus invalidating the prosecution's case (!) .
Relevance: This conclusion directly relates to the legal rights and procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act, which is fundamental to the legal framework discussed.
Summary of Findings to Include:
Excluded: No tangential or weakly related findings; all identified points are substantively relevant to understanding the basic legal rights and procedural safeguards discussed in the judgment.
JUDGMENT
PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.
1. The present criminal appeal arises out of a judgement and order dated 08.10.2015 passed by High Court of Himachal Pradesh vide Cr. Appeal No. 155 of 2015 wherein the judgment of conviction and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, rendered by the learned Special Judge-I, Shimla, H.P, in Sessions trial No. 21-S/7 of 2013, dated 31.12.2014 was set aside. The prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused for the commission of offence under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (herein after ND & PS Act). Accused was acquitted of the charges framed against him.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The factual matrix of the case is that on 13.3.2013, police party headed by SHO Daya Ram consisting of ASI Raj Kumar and others was present during Nakabandi at place Pandranu from 4:00 am to 6:00 am. The police party while coming back in vehicle No. HP-07A-0839 reached near Dhangu Dhank. The accused was found coming downward carrying red-gray coloured bag pack. On seeing the police party, the accused became perplexed and tried to run away. On suspicion, accused was apprehended by the police party. The consent was taken vide consent memo Ext. PW-1 /A. The police official has given the personal search vide memo Ext. PW-1/B. On search of the bag of accused, one plastic bag was found containing charas in the form of balls and sticks. The charas weighed 11 kg 50 grams.
3. The charas Ext. P-4 was repacked in the same bag and sealed with three seals of "H'' in parcel Ext. P-1 in the presence of witnesses and taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW-1/D. Sample of seal "H" was also taken on a piece of cloth vide Ext. PW- 1/C. Rukka Ext. PW-11/A was prepared on the basis of which FIR Ext. PW-7 /D was recorded. Investigating Officer sent the rukka and sealed parcel containing charas through Head Constable Babu Lal who deposited it in the malkhana and corresponding entry was taken in the register. The abstract of malkhana register is Ext. PW- 7 /A. The Investigating Officer prepared NCB form in triplicate vide Ext. PW-1/E. The case property was sent to FSL Junga vide RC No. 4. On completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was submitted in the competent court.
4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined as many as 11 witnesses. The statement of accused under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter ‘Cr.P.C.’) was recorded. The accused has denied the prosecution case. According to him, he was falsely implicated. The accused claimed trial. The learned Trial Court on appreciation of evidences on record, convicted and sentenced the accused, as noticed herein above.
5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of Trial Court, the accused preferred an appeal before the High Court. The Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh after considering the material and on hearing the submissions advanced by the respective parties allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment of Trial Court. The High Court observed that the accused was apprehended on 13.3.2013 while carrying a bag. However, despite that his personal search was carried out. The police had given option to the accused either to be personally searched before the Magistrate or the Gazetted Police Officer. The accused was also given option whether he wanted to be searched by the Investigating Officer in the presence of witnesses mentioned in Ext. PW-1/A. According to Section 50 of the ND & PS Act, the accused has to be apprised of his legal right to be searched either before the Magistrate or the Gazetted Officer. There is no third option to be searched before the Police Officer. Thus, the consent obtained from the accused was not in conformity with Section 50 of the Act. The act of Investigating Officer providing the third option namely, the search of accused in presence of the Police officer was clearly contrary to the provisions of the Act and particularly
Seizure of Charas – Legal right provided to accused under Section 50 of NDPS Act is indefeasible.
Non-compliance with mandatory provisions of Sections 42(2) and 50 of the NDPS Act vitiates the search and recovery, leading to acquittal.
Offering third option of police search under Section 50 NDPS Act, alongside Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, vitiates recovery; strict compliance mandatory, non-compliance plus discrepancies entitle a....
Pre-search consent memo mentioning specific NDPS section infers post-recovery fabrication; contradictions in police testimonies, failure to secure independent witnesses near populated area, and lack ....
Joint consent memo informing personal search right to multiple accused violates mandatory individual communication requirement, vitiating recovery despite resin presence confirming contraband.
The court emphasized strict compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, holding that failure to inform the accused of his right to a personal search before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate invalidate....
Stringent punishment has been provided for offences punishable under NDPS Act.
Mandatory compliance with procedural safeguards in narcotics investigations is essential to establish the legality of evidence and support prosecution claims.
Recovery from hand-carried P-Cap exempts Section 50 NDPS; Section 42 inapplicable in public place. Suspicious post-search consent memo and material contradictions in official witnesses on core recove....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
