Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in NDPS Case Due to Procedural Lapses, Failure to Comply with Section 50 of NDPS Act Vitiates Trial, Says Apex Court
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the acquittal of Surat Singh, accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), due to procedural lapses in the search process. The apex court dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the High Court's decision to acquit the accused, emphasizing the mandatory nature of compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act.
The case, which has been closely watched, involved the recovery of 11 kg 50 grams of charas from the accused. The police had apprehended Surat Singh during a routine check and conducted a search of his person and bag. However, the procedure followed by the police was found to be contrary to the provisions of the NDPS Act.
The High Court had earlier set aside the trial court's conviction and sentence of 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000, ruling that the accused was not properly apprised of his right to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer, as required under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Instead, a third option to be searched by a police officer was improperly provided, which the court found vitiated the trial.
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, cited the necessity for strict compliance with Section 50, which mandates that an accused must be informed of their right to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer, and not a police officer. The court highlighted that providing a third option not sanctioned by law rendered the search process suspect and the resultant recovery of contraband invalid.
The apex court referenced previous judgments, including those in the cases of Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujarat and State of Rajasthan v. Parmanand, reinforcing the principle that non-compliance with Section 50 can lead to acquittal, as it casts doubt on the legality of the search and the integrity of the evidence obtained.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding procedural safeguards in criminal prosecutions, particularly under the stringent NDPS Act, where the reversal of the burden of proof on the accused makes adherence to legal procedures even more critical.
Bottom Line:
Accused must be apprised of their legal right to be searched either before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer - Providing a third option to be searched before a Police Officer is contrary to the provisions of law and vitiates the trial.
Statutory provision(s):
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 50,
Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 54,
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Surat Singh, (SC) : Law Finder Doc id # 2866893
