Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal in NDPS Act Case Due to Procedural Lapse
Joint Consent Memo Violates Section 50 of NDPS Act, Rendering Recovery Inadmissible
In a significant judgment, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed the State's appeal against the acquittal of two accused, Soni and Ajay Kumar, under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The case, originally decided by the Special Judge, Chamba, involved the recovery of charas from the accused, but procedural lapses during the search led to the acquittal.
The Division Bench, comprising Justices Vivek Singh Thakur and Sushil Kukreja, upheld the trial court's decision, emphasizing the mandatory requirement of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The court noted that the joint communication of the right to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer to multiple accused was invalid, as each accused must be informed individually. This procedural non-compliance rendered the recovery of contraband inadmissible.
The bench referred to the Supreme Court's rulings in State of Rajasthan v. Parmanand and Ranjan Kumar Chadha v. State of Himachal Pradesh, which underscored the necessity for individual communication of rights under Section 50. The court stated, "The joint consent memo violates the mandatory requirement, thus invalidating the recovery of charas."
The prosecution had alleged that 600 grams of charas were recovered from Soni and 400 grams from Ajay Kumar. However, the court found that the investigation officer's failure to inform each accused individually of their rights vitiated the search process. The judgment also highlighted that the trial court's reliance on the now-overruled Sunil v. State of HP case for acquittal was incorrect, but the procedural lapse under Section 50 was sufficient to uphold the acquittal.
The court directed the respondents to furnish personal bonds in compliance with the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, ensuring their availability for any further proceedings if the State decides to pursue an appeal in the Supreme Court.
This judgment reinforces the stringent procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the importance of individual rights communication during searches to prevent misuse and ensure fair trials.
Bottom Line:
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 50 - Joint communication of right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer to multiple accused persons is not valid; each accused must be informed individually of their right - Non-compliance with Section 50 vitiates the recovery of contraband.
Statutory provision(s): Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 20, 50; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 481.
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Soni, (Himachal Pradesh)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2782796
