Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

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