NDPS | Recovery from Bag on Motorcycle Is Not Personal Search: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Conviction in 6 Kg Heroin Case

“Section 50 of NDPS Act applies only when contraband is recovered from the person, not when found in a bag placed on a vehicle” - Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed an appeal challenging a conviction under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), affirming a 12-year sentence imposed on the appellant for possession of nearly 6 kg of heroin. The Division Bench of Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta held that neither Section 50 nor Section 52A of the NDPS Act had been violated, rejecting the defence’s arguments of procedural illegality.

The appellant had argued that the mandatory procedural safeguards under Section 50 (right of search before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate) and Section 52A (sampling in the presence of a Magistrate) were not complied with, thereby vitiating the trial. The High Court, however, categorically held that recovery from a bag placed on the motorcycle did not amount to “personal search” and that samples drawn at the spot, followed by Magistrate certification the next day, satisfied the legal requirements.

“No Violation of Section 50—Recovery Was Not From the Person but From Bag on Vehicle”: Court Applies Pawan Kumar, Ranjan Chadha & Prabhu Rulings

The case arose from an incident on January 19, 2013, when the appellant, Malkiat Singh, was intercepted at a checkpoint while riding a motorcycle without a number plate. On being stopped, the police recovered a plastic bag from the front of the motorcycle, which was found to contain six packets of heroin, weighing approximately 980 grams each, totalling almost 6 kilograms.

The defence contended that Section 50 of the NDPS Act, which requires that an accused be informed of the right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, had not been complied with. However, the Court held that the recovery was not from the person of the accused but from a bag placed on a motorcycle, and therefore Section 50 was not attracted.

Citing State of Himachal Pradesh v. Pawan Kumar, Appeal (Crl.) No. 222/1997, the Court noted:

“Section 50 of the Act can have no application on the facts and circumstances of the present case as opium was allegedly recovered from the bag, which was being carried by the accused.”

It further relied on Ranjan Kumar Chadha v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2023 INSC 878 and the Supreme Court’s recent verdict in State of Kerala v. Prabhu, Crl. Appeal No. 3434/2024, where it was reaffirmed that:

“If the recovery was not from the person but from a bag carried by him, the procedural formalities prescribed under Section 50 of the NDPS Act were not required to be complied with.”

Thus, the Bench concluded:“These provisions are not applicable to the instant case, as the recovery was not from the person of the accused but from the bag lying on the motorcycle.” [Para 9]

“Drawing of Samples on Spot Is Valid Procedure—Magistrate’s Certification the Next Day Is Sufficient Compliance”: Court Relies on NCB v. Kashif

The defence also raised objection under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, alleging that samples were not drawn in the presence of a Magistrate, as allegedly required. However, the Court dismissed this argument, affirming that samples drawn at the spot in the presence of officers and later produced before a Magistrate the next day, where seals were found intact and inventory certified, constituted valid compliance.

In doing so, the Court relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in NCB v. Kashif, 2024 INSC 1045, which clarified:

“None of the provisions in the Act prohibits sample to be taken on the spot at the time of seizure… it is only the remnant substance that requires disposal as per Section 52A.” [Para 10]

The High Court emphasized that procedural irregularities do not vitiate a trial unless prejudice is shown, quoting from Kashif:

“Delayed compliance or non-compliance of Section 52A neither vitiates the trial nor can be a sole ground to seek bail… procedural lapses must not be allowed to frustrate the object and purpose of the Act.” [Paras 10–11]

The Bench held that the case property was produced before the Magistrate on the very next day, the seals were intact, and the inventory was duly certified, thereby satisfying procedural mandates under law.

“Non-Joinder of Public Witness Not Fatal Where Effort Was Made and Official Testimony is Reliable”: Court Upholds Integrity of Recovery

The appellant also claimed that no independent public witness was joined in the recovery despite the place being a public road. Dismissing this argument, the Court held that non-joining of public witnesses is not fatal, particularly where an effort to do so was recorded in the official ‘ruqa’ (initial report).

The Court observed:“It has specifically been mentioned that before conducting the search, an effort had been made to join witness from public but none was available.” [Para 13]

Further, it held that the testimonies of police officers, when found consistent and trustworthy, can be safely relied upon, especially in narcotics cases where public cooperation is often difficult to obtain.

“Testimonies of PW2, PW4 and PW6 inspire confidence and corroborate the prosecution version on all material particulars and hence, the same can safely be relied upon to record the conviction.” [Para 13]

“Conviction Based on Cogent Evidence, No Illegality or Perversity Found in Trial Court’s Reasoning”: Appeal Dismissed

Upholding the conviction and sentence awarded by the Special Court, Ferozepur, the High Court concluded:

“The impugned judgment and order on sentence… do not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or perversity or irregularity so as to warrant any interference by this Court. Resultantly, the appeal… is dismissed.” [Para 14]

Thus, the Court confirmed the appellant’s sentence of 12 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of ₹1 lakh, with an additional six months imprisonment in default of payment.

Date of Decision: November 4, 2025