The Supreme Court of India has dismissed an appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against a High Court decision that acquitted an individual accused of possessing 11 kg 50 grams of charas. The Bench, comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, affirmed that providing a “third option” for a search—specifically before a police officer—is contrary to the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (ND&PS) Act, 1985.
Background of the Case
The case originated on March 13, 2013, when a police party conducting a routine Nakabandi at Pandranu apprehended the respondent, Surat Singh. According to the prosecution, Singh was carrying a red-gray backpack and attempted to flee upon seeing the police. A search of the bag allegedly revealed charas in the form of balls and sticks, weighing 11 kg 50 grams.
On December 31, 2014, the Special Judge-I, Shimla, convicted Singh under Section 20 of the ND&PS Act, sentencing him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000. Singh appealed this decision to the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, which set aside the conviction on October 8, 2015, leading the State to move the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant (State of Himachal Pradesh): The State contended that the High Court erred in setting aside the conviction. They argued that the contraband was recovered from a bag carried by the accused, not from his person, making it a “chance recovery” during a routine check. The State relied on Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujarat and State of Punjab v. Makhan Singh, asserting that the testimony of police witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3) corroborated the recovery from the bag.
Respondent (Surat Singh): Counsel for the respondent argued that although the contraband was in a bag, the police subjected the accused to a personal search. They contended that the Investigating Officer (IO) provided the accused with a “third option”—to be searched by the police officer himself—which is not permitted under Section 50 of the ND&PS Act.
Furthermore, the respondent highlighted a critical discrepancy: while the prosecution claimed an electronic weighing scale was used to weigh the drugs, the shopkeeper (PW-8) from whom the scale was allegedly borrowed testified that he only possessed a traditional scale and that no police officer had approached him that day.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court focused on two primary issues: the procedural mandate of Section 50 and the credibility of the seizure process.
1. Mandatory Compliance with Section 50 The Court observed that even if a bag is searched, Section 50 is attracted if a personal search is also conducted. The Court noted that the IO gave the accused the option to be searched before a Magistrate, a Gazetted Officer, or the IO himself. Referring to State of Rajasthan v. Parmanand and Anr., the Court held:
“According to Section 50 of the ND & PS Act, the accused has to be apprised of his legal right to be searched either before the Magistrate or the Gazetted Officer. There is no third option to be searched before the Police Officer. Thus, the consent obtained from the accused was not in conformity with Section 50 of the Act. It has vitiated the entire trial.”
The Bench also cited Suresh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, emphasizing that “failure to inform” the person of their legal right to refuse a search by the police party renders the recovery suspect and the conviction unsustainable. The Court further noted:
“The act of Investigating Officer providing the third option namely, the search of accused in presence of the Police officer was clearly contrary to the provisions of the Act and particularly contrary to the provisions of Section 50 of ND & PS Act.”
2. Discrepancies in Evidence The Court found the oral testimony of PW-8 (the shopkeeper) to be a fatal blow to the prosecution’s story. The prosecution claimed to have used an electronic scale from PW-8’s shop to weigh the 11 kg of charas. However, PW-8 testified in “clear and unambiguous words” that he only had a traditional scale and was unaware that the accused had been apprehended.
The Court remarked:
“This uncontroverted version of the witness falsifies the story of prosecution to the effect that for weighing the contraband article charas, electronic weighing scale was used. Thus, the oral evidence of PW-8 is additional reason making the prosecution case doubtful and untrustworthy.”
Decision
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court committed no error in its appreciation of the evidence. Finding the State’s appeal “devoid of merits,” the Court dismissed the criminal appeal and upheld the acquittal of Surat Singh.
Case Details
- Case Title: The State of Himachal Pradesh v. Surat Singh
- Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2018
- Bench: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
- Date: March 16, 2026
