Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH – Appellant
Versus
SURAT SINGH – Respondent
Key Points: - Conviction under NDPS Section 20 reversed by High Court due to non-compliance with Section 50 NDPS Act regarding search rights; Supreme Court sustains acquittal and upholds High Court reasoning. (!) (!) (!) - Section 50 compliance mandatory; failure to inform right to be searched before Gazetted Officer or Magistrate (and not a third option to be searched before police) can vitiate the trial and recovery. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The burden under Section 54 NDPS raises presumption of possession; however, must first establish a valid search/recovery; if search is invalid, presumption not triggered. (!) (!) (!) - Supreme Court cites and applies precedents: Suresh and others v. State of MP; Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja; State of Rajasthan v. Parmanand; Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri; State of Punjab v. Makhan Singh; State of Rajasthan v. Parmanand as supporting the caution against improper search. (!) (!) (!) (!) - On facts, electronic weighing scale allegation contradicted by PW-8; reinforces unreliability of prosecution case. (!) (!) - High Court’s analysis that the search conducted in violation of Section 50 and the resulting acquittal were proper; appeal to Supreme Court dismissed. (!) (!)
NON-REPORTABLE
2026 INSC 240 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 96 OF 2018 THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH ……….Appellant VERSUS SURAT SINGH ………Respondent
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 Signature Not Verified N D E at H e A : 2 G 02 Up6 P .0 T 3 Ar.16ove the case against the accused for the commission of offence Reason:
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 polic
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
