Punjab and Haryana High Court Acquits Appellant in NDPS Case Citing Non-Compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act
In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj, acquitted the appellant, Harjeet Singh, who had been convicted under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act). The Court held that the conviction and sentence were unsustainable due to the non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act.
The case involved the recovery of 10 grams of heroin from the appellant during a police patrolling duty. The prosecution contended that the appellant was found in possession of the contraband, leading to his arrest and subsequent conviction by the Special Court in Chandigarh. However, the defense vehemently argued that the appellant had been falsely implicated and that the procedural safeguards prescribed under Section 50 were not followed during the search and recovery process.
The defense counsel highlighted that the police failed to comply with the provisions of Section 50, which require the informing of the accused person’s right to be searched before a gazetted officer or a magistrate. They further pointed out that no independent witnesses were present during the recovery, raising doubts about the credibility of the prosecution’s case.
After carefully examining the arguments and evidence presented, the High Court concurred with the appellant’s contentions. The Court cited precedents, including the Supreme Court decision in Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat, emphasizing the imperative nature of complying with Section 50 when searching the body of an accused. It was noted that the recovery was made from the appellant’s hand, making the provisions of Section 50 applicable in this case.
The Court held that the failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 50 rendered the recovery suspect and raised doubts about the validity of the conviction. The absence of independent witnesses further weakened the prosecution’s case. Therefore, the High Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt and that the conviction and sentence awarded by the lower court were unsustainable.
Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant of all charges.
Date of Decision: 11.05.2023
Harjeet Singh vs State of UT, Chandigarh
