Strict compliance with NDPS Act procedures found lacking; accused granted benefit of doubt
In a significant judgment passed by the Delhi High Court on May 7, 2026, the court acquitted Sunil Sharma, who was previously convicted under Section 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for possessing one kilogram of heroin. The acquittal came as the court found several procedural lapses in the prosecution's handling of the case, ultimately leading to the benefit of doubt being given to the accused.
The case dates back to May 18, 2012, when Sharma was allegedly intercepted at the Singhu Border, Delhi, driving a vehicle concealing heroin. He was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years, along with a fine of Rs. 100,000 by the trial court. However, Sharma challenged the conviction, leading to this appeal.
Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha, presiding over the appeal, highlighted the importance of strict compliance with procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act due to the severe punishments prescribed. The court noted several discrepancies, including the non-compliance with Section 52A, unexplained delays in sample handling, and improper custody documentation, which collectively weakened the prosecution's case.
The judgment referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Tofan Singh v. The State of Tamil Nadu, where confessions under Section 67 of the NDPS Act were deemed inadmissible, further undermining the prosecution's reliance on Sharma's alleged confession.
The court emphasized that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt, stressing the need for heightened scrutiny in NDPS cases. As a result, the court directed the Chief Secretary of the Government of N.C.T. of Delhi to ensure future compliance with procedural requirements to avoid miscarriages of justice.
In concluding, Justice Sudha set aside the trial court's judgment, acquitting Sunil Sharma of the charges against him. The case underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding procedural integrity, especially in cases involving stringent laws like the NDPS Act.
Bottom line:-
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Procedural lapses, including non-compliance with Section 52A and Standing Orders, can lead to acquittal if the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Statutory provision(s):
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Sections 21(c), 52A, 67; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Sections 451, 238(1), 374(2), 482
Sunil @ Sunil Sharma v. Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2894232
