The Supreme Court of India has dismissed an appeal by the State of Himachal Pradesh, upholding the acquittal of an individual accused of possessing 11.05 kg of charas. The Bench, comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale, ruled that the prosecution failed to strictly adhere to mandatory search procedures under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.
Background of the Case
The matter originated from an incident on March 13, 2013, when police apprehended the respondent, Surat Singh, near Dhangu Dhank. A search of his backpack reportedly uncovered a plastic bag containing charas in the form of balls and sticks.
While a Trial Court initially convicted Singh in 2014, sentencing him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh overturned this decision in 2015, leading the State to appeal to the apex court.
Key Legal Turning Points
The Supreme Court’s decision centered on two critical failures in the prosecution’s case:
- Violation of Section 50 (Search Protocols): The Court noted that the Investigating Officer provided the accused with a “third option”—to be searched by the police officer themselves—rather than just the legally mandated options of being searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. The Court reiterated that even if a bag is searched, if a personal search is also conducted, strict compliance with Section 50 is mandatory. Failure to do so vitiates the trial.
- Contradictory Evidence on Weighing: A key prosecution witness (PW-8) testified that his shop only had traditional scales, contradicting the police claim that an electronic weighing scale from his shop was used to weigh the contraband. The Court found this discrepancy rendered the prosecution’s story “doubtful and ultimately unacceptable”.
Final Verdict
Dismissing the State’s appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed that the High Court was justified in its acquittal. The judgment reinforces the principle that in NDPS cases, where penalties are severe, procedural safeguards must be followed with “strict compliance” to ensure a fair trial.
Leave a Reply