Recently, the Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of an accused in a narcotics case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, affirming that procedural safeguards under the law cannot be diluted. The Court refused to interfere with the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision, emphasising that any deviation from mandatory safeguards, especially under Section 50, can render the entire prosecution unsustainable. In a significant observation, the Court reiterated that failure to strictly comply with statutory safeguards strikes at the root of the prosecution’s case.
Brief Facts:
The case arose from a 2013 incident where a police team conducting routine naka checking in Himachal Pradesh apprehended the accused carrying a backpack. Upon search, the police allegedly recovered over 11 kilograms of charas from the bag. The contraband was seized, sealed, and sent for forensic examination, leading to the filing of charges under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. The Trial Court convicted the accused and imposed a 10 year rigorous imprisonment sentence along with a fine. However, on appeal, the High Court overturned the conviction, noting procedural lapses in the manner the search was conducted, particularly regarding compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, which guarantees certain rights to the accused during personal search.
Contentions:
The counsel for the State contended that the High Court erred in overturning a well-reasoned conviction supported by cogent evidence. It was argued that the recovery was made from the accused’s bag and not from his personal search, thereby making Section 50 inapplicable. The prosecution further maintained that the recovery was a chance discovery during routine checking, supported by witness testimonies, forensic evidence, and other corroborative material. Reliance was placed on precedents to argue that procedural lapses, if any, did not vitiate the otherwise strong prosecution case.
On the other hand, counsel for the accused argued that the entire search was vitiated due to non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act. It was submitted that the accused was improperly given a “third option” of being searched before a police officer, which is not contemplated under the statute. The defence emphasised that such deviation undermines the accused’s legal rights and renders the recovery suspect. Additionally, contradictions in witness testimonies particularly regarding the weighing of the contraband, were highlighted to question the credibility of the prosecution’s case.
Observations of the Court:
The Supreme Court undertook a detailed examination of the procedural safeguards under Section 50 and upheld the High Court’s reasoning. It noted that once a personal search is conducted alongside the search of a bag, strict compliance with Section 50 becomes mandatory. The Court found that the Investigating Officer had deviated from the statutory mandate by offering an impermissible third option, thereby compromising the accused’s legal rights. Endorsing the High Court’s findings, the Court observed, “There is no third option to be searched before the Police Officer… the consent obtained was not in conformity with Section 50 of the Act. It has vitiated the entire trial.”
Further, the Court highlighted inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence, particularly the testimony regarding the weighing of the contraband, which cast serious doubt on the integrity of the recovery process. Relying on established precedents, the Court reiterated that non-compliance with mandatory safeguards makes the recovery itself suspect, thereby weakening the foundation of the prosecution’s case. It also emphasised the limited scope of interference in appeals against acquittal, noting that unless the High Court’s view is perverse or wholly unreasonable, it must not be disturbed.
The decision of the Court:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the accused, affirming that the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court held that strict compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act is mandatory, and any deviation, such as offering an impermissible third option during search, vitiates the trial and renders the recovery legally unreliable.
Case Title: The State Of Himachal Pradesh vs. Surat Singh
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 96 Of 2018
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Pankaj Mithal, Hon’ble Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Baldev Singh, Adv. Divyansh Thakur, Adv. Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Adv. Rishabh Kumar Singh, Adv. Roopesh Singh Bhadauria, Adv. Anya Singh, AOR. Bimlesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Narendra Kumar,
Advocate for the Respondent: AOR. Nidhi,
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
