The Supreme Court has held that failure to properly inform accused of rights makes recovery suspect and the improper search procedure under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) invalidates prosecution.
The bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale has dismissed an appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh and upheld the acquittal of an accused in a drug possession case involving over 11 kilograms of charas and ruled that failure to strictly comply with the legal requirements relating to search under Section 50 of the NDPS Act vitiated the prosecution case.
The case dates back to March 13, 2013, when a police team conducting routine naka checking allegedly apprehended the accused, Surat Singh, who was carrying a backpack. On suspicion, the police stopped and searched him. During the search, they recovered 11 kg and 50 grams of charas packed inside the bag he was carrying. The contraband was seized, sealed, and subsequently sent for forensic examination.
Following investigation, the accused was prosecuted and the Special Judge-I, Shimla, convicted him under the NDPS Act and sentenced him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹1 lakh. However, the conviction was later challenged before the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which overturned the verdict and acquitted the accused.
The High Court found serious procedural lapses in the manner in which the search of the accused was conducted. Under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, a person about to be searched must be informed of their legal right to be searched either before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer.
However, in this case, the investigating officer allegedly offered the accused a third option—to be searched by the police officer himself in the presence of witnesses. The High Court held that such an option is not contemplated under the statute, and therefore the consent obtained from the accused was not legally valid. This procedural violation, according to the High Court, vitiated the entire search and seizure process.
While examining the appeal, the Supreme Court agreed with the High Court’s reasoning and held that strict compliance with the safeguards under the NDPS Act is essential because of the severe punishments prescribed under the law.
The Court observed that when the law clearly provides only two choices—search before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer—offering any additional option would amount to a violation of statutory safeguards. Such deviation undermines the protection granted to accused persons during search and seizure operations.
The bench also noted inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence. For instance, a witness contradicted the police version regarding the use of an electronic weighing scale to weigh the seized contraband. The witness stated that his shop only had a traditional weighing scale, casting further doubt on the prosecution story.
The Supreme Court reiterated that compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act is mandatory. Any search conducted without properly informing the accused of their statutory rights can render the recovery suspect. Courts should be cautious while interfering with acquittal orders, especially when the prosecution case suffers from procedural defects.
The Court also emphasized that once the validity of the search and seizure is doubtful, the presumption of possession under the NDPS Act cannot operate against the accused.
After examining the evidence and the High Court’s reasoning, the Supreme Court concluded that the acquittal was justified and that the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh was dismissed, bringing the long-running case to a close.
Case Details
Case Title: The State Of Himachal Pradesh Versus Surat Singh
Citation: JURISHOUR-401-SC-2026
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 96 Of 2018
Date: 16/03/2026
