Providing Third Option Of Search Before Police Officer Violates Section 50 NDPS Act: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal In Charas Recovery Case
The Apex Court upheld the acquittal of an accused charged under the NDPS Act after finding that the Investigating Officer acted contrary to the statutory mandate of Section 50 by offering an impermissible third option for search before a police officer, thereby vitiating the prosecution’s case.
Justice Pankaj Mithal, Justice Prasanna B. Varale, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of an accused charged under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act after finding that the Investigating Officer had acted contrary to Section 50 of the Act by offering an impermissible third option for search before a police officer.
The Court was hearing a criminal appeal filed by the State against the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which had set aside the conviction recorded by the trial court for the offence under Section 20 of the NDPS Act.
The Apex Court affirmed the finding of the High Court, in which it had held that the statute requires the accused to be apprised only of the right to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer, and providing any additional option falls outside the framework of the law, rendering the consent obtained from the accused invalid and undermining the prosecution's case.
A Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale affirmed that “High Court was justified in placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in State of Rajasthan versus Parmanand (2014), in support of the conclusions drawn by it”, and held that “the Investigating Officer took a departure from the provisions of law and on the contrary committed an act which is clearly contrary to the provisions of law”.
Background
According to the prosecution's case, a police party was conducting a routine checkpoint operation when the accused was spotted carrying a bag. On noticing the police, the accused allegedly attempted to flee, following which he was apprehended. Upon searching the bag carried by him, the police claimed to have recovered charas weighing approximately 11 kilograms. The contraband was seized, sealed and subsequently sent for forensic examination, following which a charge sheet was filed.
During the trial, the prosecution examined several witnesses to establish the recovery of the contraband. The trial court, upon appreciation of the evidence, convicted the accused and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment along with a monetary penalty.
The accused challenged the conviction before the High Court, which found that the procedure followed during the search did not conform to the mandatory requirements of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The High Court noted that the Investigating Officer had given the accused three options, being searched before a Magistrate, a Gazetted Officer, or a police officer searching, whereas the statute recognises only the first two options. On this basis, the High Court held that the consent obtained from the accused was not legally valid and consequently set aside the conviction.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court examined the reasoning adopted by the High Court and found no error in its analysis. It noted that the High Court had carefully evaluated the evidence and concluded that the statutory safeguards governing the search of the accused had not been complied with.
The Court reiterated that Section 50 of the NDPS Act requires that a person about to be searched must be informed of the right to be searched before either a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. The introduction of any additional option beyond those prescribed under the statute is inconsistent with the legal mandate and may vitiate the search procedure.
In the present case, the Investigating Officer had offered the accused an impermissible third alternative, being searched by a police officer. According to the Court, such a course of action amounted to deviation from the statutory framework governing searches under the NDPS Act. The Court observed that when the law prescribes specific safeguards, strict adherence to those safeguards is necessary to sustain the prosecution's case.
The Court further noted that the testimony of a prosecution witness cast doubt on the prosecution’s version regarding the weighing of the seized contraband. The witness stated that only a traditional weighing scale was available in his shop and not an electronic weighing machine, thereby contradicting the prosecution’s claim that an electronic scale was used. This discrepancy further weakened the credibility of the prosecution’s narrative.
Taking these factors into account, the Court held that the High Court was justified in concluding that the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Bench observed that the Investigating Officer had “taken a departure from the provisions of law” and committed an act contrary to the statutory requirements governing search and seizure.
Conclusion
In light of the above findings, the Supreme Court held that the appeal filed by the State was devoid of merit. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the acquittal recorded by the High Court.
Cause Title: The State of Himachal Pradesh v. Surat Singh (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 240)
Appearances
Appellant: Advocates Baldev Singh, Divyansh Thakur, Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Rishabh Kumar Singh, Roopesh Singh Bhadauria, Anya Singh, Narendra Kumar, Bimlesh Kumar Singh, AOR
Respondent: Advocate Nidhi, AOR