IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Charanjit Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 362 of 2023
Decided on : 05-05-2025
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Section 20 - Conviction for possession of cannabis - Appellant convicted and sentenced to four years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.20,000/- - The search conducted by police was found to violate Section 50 of the NDPS Act, as the accused was not properly informed of his right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer. (Paras 1 , 16 , 24 , 29 )
(B) Compliance with Section 50 - The court emphasized that the failure to inform the accused of his rights under Section 50 is fatal to the prosecution's case, rendering the recovery of contraband inadmissible. (Paras 16 , 24 , 29 )
(C) Evidence and witness credibility - The court noted that minor contradictions in witness testimonies do not undermine the prosecution's case if the core facts are corroborated. (Paras 6 , 22 )
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for possessing 195 grams of cannabis, recovered during a police search on a bus. The police failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act regarding the search.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution did not prove compliance with Section 50, leading to the conclusion that the conviction was unsustainable.
Issues: The main issues were whether the search complied with Section 50 of the NDPS Act and the credibility of witness testimonies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that non-compliance with Section 50 vitiates the search and recovery, making the conviction invalid.
Result: The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted.
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.04.2023, passed by learned Special Judge, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., vide which the appellant (accused before learned Trial Court) was convicted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the ND&PS Act’) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fouryears, pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months for the commission of the aforesaid offence. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the ND&PS Act. It was asserted that HC Ram Lal (PW9), H.C. Sanjeev Kumar (PW6), HHC Kishori Lal, Constable Chet Ram, and LHC Deena Nath had set up the nakka at Naulakha to check vehicles on 19.06.2014. They stopped a bus bearing registration number PB-12Q-9952, which was coming from Manali and going to Chandigarh. The police began checking the luggage of the passengers. The passenger occupying the last seat became frightened. H.C. Ram Lal, along with conductor Pavitar Singh (PW1), inquired about the name of the passenger, who revealed his name as Charanjit Singh (the accused). H.C. Ram Lal informed the accused that he (H.C. Ram Lal) suspected that the accused was carrying narcotics, and that the accused had the right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer. The accused consented to a search by the police. A memo (Ex. PW1/B) was prepared. The police party gave their personal search to the accused, and nothing incriminating was found in their possession. Memo (Ex.PW1/A) was prepared. H.C. Ram Lal conducted the personal search of the accused and recovered one polythene packet (Ex.P2) from the right pocket of the accused's pants.The packet was checked, and it was found to contain black sticks (Ex. P3). These were identified as cannabis. H.C. Ram Lal weighed the cannabis along with the polythene packet, finding its total weight to be 202 grams. He weighed the cannabis without the packet, which weighed 195 grams. He placed the cannabis back into the polythene packet in the same manner as it was recovered. He then placed the polythene packet into a cloth parcel and sealed it with six seals marked ‘H’. He filled out the relevant sections of the NCB-1 form (PW4/E) in triplicate and applied the seal impression ‘H’ on the form. He obtained a specimen seal impression (Ex. PW1/C) on a separate piece of cloth and handed over the seal to H.C. Sanjeev Kumar (PW6) after its use. He took photographs (Ex.PW9/A/1 to Ex.PW9/A/4). He seized the parcel, NCB-1 form in triplicate, and sample seal vide memo (Ex. PW1/D). He prepared a rukka (Ex.PW9/B) and handed it over to LHC Deena Nath (PW7) with instructions to take it to the police station at BSNL Colony, Sundernagar. LHC Deena Nath delivered the rukka to Rattan Singh (PW4), who registered the FIR (Ex. PW4/A) and returned the case file to LHC Deena Nath with instructions to take it to the spot. ASI Ram Lal prepared a site plan (Ex.PW9/C) and recorded statements of the witnesses as per their accounts. He arrested the accused vide memo (Ex. PW9/D) and conducted his personal search vide memo (Ex. PW6/A). He presented the accused and the case file before Rattan Singh (PW4). Rattan Singh checked the seals of the parcel and resealed it with six seals marked ‘T’, and obtained the sample seal on a separate cloth (Ex. PW4/D). He prepared a memo of resealing (PW4/C), filled columns 9 to 11 of the NCB-1 form, and applied seal ‘T’ on the form. He handed over the case property, documents, and sample seals to LHC Nand Lal (PW8), who mad
Non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act during the search invalidates the recovery of contraband, leading to acquittal.
Offering third option of police search under Section 50 NDPS Act, alongside Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, vitiates recovery from clothing; combined with procedural doubts and contradictions, mandat....
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....
Non-compliance with mandatory provisions of Sections 42(2) and 50 of the NDPS Act vitiates the search and recovery, leading to acquittal.
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....
Strict compliance with the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, particularly in informing the accused of their right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, is mandatory and non-....
Non-compliance with Section 50 NDPS Act for personal search renders contraband recovery suspicious and vitiates conviction based thereon, as safeguards are mandatory.
Strict compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act is mandatory, and failure to comply vitiates the seizure and consequential conviction.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.