Calling Family Land "Ancestral" Is Not Enough — Must Trace Four Generations Of Male Lineage To Stop Father From Selling It: Punjab & Haryana HC Marks Of Candidates In Public Exam Not Private Information, Disclosable Under RTI: Allahabad High Court Integrity of a Judge Is Difficult to Prove by Direct Evidence: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Adverse ACR Entry Against Judicial Officer When State Reorganisation Is Already Done, Section 103 Of Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act Cannot Undo It: Supreme Court Rules Sugarcane Societies Are Not Multi-State Bodies Bihar Cannot Take Over A Century-Old Library By Paying One Rupee As Compensation: Supreme Court Strikes Down 2015 Act Call Records Without Section 65-B Certificate Are Inadmissible, Oral Evidence Of Nodal Officer No Substitute: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Minority Shareholders Cannot Block Capital Reduction By Majority: Supreme Court Upholds Bharti Telecom's Buyout Of 1.09% Individual Investors At Rs.196.80 Per Share Travel Bans On Unvaccinated, No Disclosure Of Deaths Abroad: Supreme Court Finds COVID Vaccine Programme Violated Articles 14, 19 And 21 Bottle Cap Supplier Gets Anticipatory Bail In Spurious Liquor Case: Supreme Court Finds No Raid At His Premises, No Misuse Of Liberty DNA And Chemical Analyst Reports Cannot Be Read In Evidence Without Examining Scientific Experts: Bombay High Court Proof Of Agreement Alone Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Specific Performance - Continuous Readiness And Willingness Is A Condition Precedent: Chhattisgarh High Court Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Replace Proof: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Bank Clerk’s Dismissal in Rs. 38.67 Lakh Pension Account Case Cheque Dishonour Due To ‘Account Blocked’ Cannot Attract Section 138 NI Act When Drawer Had No Control Over Frozen Account: Karnataka High Court Mere Domestic Discord Or Harassment Is Not Abetment Of Suicide: Gujarat High Court Upholds Husband’s Acquittal Silence On Incriminating Circumstance Can Strengthen Prosecution Case: Gauhati High Court On Section 313 CrPC Even In Heinous Offences, Accused Cannot Be Kept In Jail Indefinitely: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail After 7 Years Of Trial Delay Acquittal On Benefit Of Doubt Cannot Rescue Police Officer From Removal: Kerala High Court Upholds Dismissal Despite Criminal Court's Not Guilty Verdict Trial Court Cannot Ignore High Court Directions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Orders Fresh Enquiry And Initiates Disciplinary Action State Cannot Shrug Responsibility For Vaccine Deaths: Supreme Court Directs Centre To Frame No-Fault Compensation Policy For COVID-19 Adverse Events Supreme Court Streamlines Procedural Safeguards For Passive Euthanasia

Supreme Court Quashes Conviction under NDPS Act Citing 'Serious Doubt' Over Seizure Procedure

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has quashed a conviction under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), citing a "serious doubt about the prosecution's case that substance recovered was a contraband".

The appellant, Simarnjit Singh, who was convicted for possession of poppy husk, had his sentence overturned after the Apex Court ruled that the procedure for drawing samples of the seized substance did not conform to the law.

The two-judge bench, consisting of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal, examined the procedure of drawing samples, as outlined in Section 52A(2) of the NDPS Act, and found it was not adhered to in this case. They pointed out that samples were drawn immediately after the seizure, which was contrary to the prescribed process.

Quoting from their judgment, the court held, "The act of drawing samples from all the packets at the time seizure is not in conformity with the law laid down by this Court. This creates a serious doubt about the prosecution's case." This decision relied heavily on a previous Supreme Court case, Union of India v. Mohanlal & Anr, which emphasised that samples should be drawn in the presence and under the supervision of the Magistrate.

With this verdict, the court has underscored the importance of strict adherence to the procedural aspects of the law, highlighting that any lapses could cast serious doubt on the prosecution's case.

"Hence, the case of the prosecution is not free from suspicion and the same has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt," the court stated, setting aside the earlier conviction.

Following this judgment, the accused, Simarnjit Singh, has been freed of his conviction and sentence, reinforcing the principle that the prosecution's case must be watertight and established beyond a reasonable doubt to hold up in a court of law.

Date of Decision: May 9, 2023

SIMARNJIT SINGH vs STATE OF PUNJAB

Latest Legal News