Sunrise Search Complies with Legal Provisions: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction Under NDPS Act

Conviction and sentence for possession and transportation of 70.340 kg of poppy husk reaffirmed . The Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of Mohan Pal alias Monty and Ram Gopal for possession and transportation of a large quantity of poppy husk under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), 1985. The judgment reaffirms the procedures followed during the search and seizure, conducted at sunrise, were in strict compliance with legal requirements, dismissing the appellants’ contentions regarding procedural lapses.

On August 17, 2016, a police team from Nahan intercepted an Eeco van at Bohlion bridge, acting on a secret tip-off. The van, driven by appellant Mohan Pal with Ram Gopal as a passenger, was found carrying 70.340 kg of poppy husk. The appellants were arrested and subsequently charged under Sections 15 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

The appellants argued non-compliance with Sections 42 and 100(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), contending that the search conducted at 7:30 AM required a warrant or recording of grounds of belief. The court clarified that under Section 42 of the NDPS Act, searches conducted between sunrise and sunset do not require such measures. The bench noted:

“Since the search was conducted at 7:30 AM, during sunrise, there was no requirement for a warrant or recording the grounds of belief. The proper procedure under Section 42 of the NDPS Act was followed.”

The appellants pointed out inconsistencies in the police witnesses’ statements and the lack of support from independent witnesses, Sanjeev Kumar and Dev Raj. The court held that minor contradictions did not affect the prosecution’s core case, emphasizing:

“Minor discrepancies do not affect the core of the prosecution case. Independent witnesses did not support the prosecution, but this was not prejudicial to the appellants.”

The appellants were found in possession of a substantial quantity of poppy husk, valued highly in the illegal market. The court dismissed the notion of the contraband being planted, citing the improbability due to its high cost and the appellants’ conscious possession:

“The large quantity and high cost of the contraband make it unlikely to be planted. The prosecution proved conscious possession through credible police testimony and documentation.”

The judgment extensively discussed the principles of evaluating evidence under the NDPS Act. The court reaffirmed the validity of the initial police testimonies and procedural compliance. Addressing procedural concerns raised by the defense, the court noted:

“The empowered officer may carry out the search without a warrant between sunrise and sunset if the information is taken down in writing. The grounds of belief are necessary only for searches between sunset and sunrise.”

“The substantial evidence supports the conviction. The prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts, and the conviction and sentence imposed are in conformity with the provisions of law and evidence on record.”

The Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision reinforces the strict compliance required under the NDPS Act and the reliability of police procedures and testimonies in narcotics cases. By affirming the lower court’s judgment, the court sends a strong message about upholding legal procedures and ensuring justice in the fight against narcotics trafficking.

The appeal stands dismissed, and the convictions under Sections 15 and 29 of the NDPS Act remain upheld.

Date of Decision: July 16, 2024

Mohan Pal alias Monty & anr. Vs. State of H.P.