In the case of Sohan Lal v. State of U.P. (CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2616 of 2006), the Allahabad High Court recently acquitted the appellant, Sohan Lal, who had been convicted under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Raebareli. The trial court had sentenced Sohan Lal to three years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 10,000, with a default stipulation. The appellant was represented by counsel Jyotindra Mishra, while the State was represented by the Government Advocate.
The case arose from an incident in 1997, where the police, led by SHO Rameshwar Singh, apprehended four individuals unloading sacks from a jeep. Upon searching them, the police recovered ganja and liquor bottles. Sohan Lal and the others were charged under various sections of the Excise Act and the NDPS Act. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, asserting that he was falsely implicated due to enmity.
Key Legal Issues:
The appeal was primarily centered around the compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, which mandates that a suspect must be informed of their right to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. The appellant’s counsel argued that this safeguard was not observed, rendering the search and subsequent recovery illegal. The counsel relied on precedents set by the Supreme Court in Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat and State of Rajasthan v. Parmanand and another, emphasizing that strict compliance with Section 50 is mandatory.
Court’s Observations and Decision:
Justice Shamim Ahmed, presiding over the appeal, meticulously examined whether the procedural safeguards of the NDPS Act were adhered to. The court noted that the prosecution’s case heavily relied on the testimonies of police personnel, with no independent witnesses corroborating the recovery. Furthermore, the prosecution did not present any written consent from the appellant regarding the search, nor did it make efforts to produce him before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate as required under Section 50.
In its judgment, the court quoted the Supreme Court’s observations from Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja, highlighting the importance of informing the suspect of their right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate to prevent misuse of power by law enforcement and to protect innocent individuals. The court stated:
“Failure to comply with the provision would render the recovery of the illicit article suspect and vitiate the conviction if the same is recorded only on the basis of the recovery of the illicit article from the person of the accused during such search.”
The court found significant lapses in the prosecution’s handling of the case, including the non-production of independent witnesses and failure to comply with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. It concluded that these procedural failures created reasonable doubt about the integrity of the evidence presented, making the prosecution’s case untenable.
In light of these findings, the Allahabad High Court set aside the conviction and acquitted Sohan Lal, underscoring that strict compliance with the safeguards under the NDPS Act is crucial for a valid conviction.
