Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Strict Safeguards for Drug Searches: Court Dismisses State’s Appeal against NDPS Act Acquittal, Ruling that Section 50’s Procedural Safeguards are Mandatory to Ensure Fairness in Drug Search and Recovery Processes.

Court’s Decision

The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed the State’s appeal against the acquittal of the accused, emphasizing that procedural safeguards under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act are mandatory. The court held that offering a third option, allowing the accused to consent to a search by the police, was a violation of the statutory requirement to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer. This procedural lapse rendered the recovery of the contraband inadmissible.

Facts

The accused was apprehended during a police traffic check, where he was found in possession of 400 grams of charas concealed in his socks. The police claimed to have informed the accused about his right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, but the accused reportedly consented to a search by the police. A consent memo documenting this choice was prepared, and the contraband was subsequently recovered. Despite this, the trial court acquitted the accused on the grounds of procedural violations under Section 50 of the NDPS Act.

Issues

1. Procedural Compliance: Whether the acquittal was justified due to non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, which mandates specific safeguards for the search of an individual.
2. Admissibility of Evidence: Whether the recovery of contraband could be considered valid evidence despite procedural violations.
3. Legality of Search: Whether the introduction of a “third option” to the accused to be searched by police violated statutory requirements.

Petitioner’s Arguments (State’s Position)

The State argued that the trial court failed to properly appreciate the evidence and the recovery process. It contended that:

• The accused had voluntarily consented to the search by the police.
• The procedural safeguards were duly followed, and the recovery was valid.
• The trial court erred in dismissing credible evidence based on procedural technicalities.

Respondent’s Arguments (Defense’s Position)

The respondent (accused) argued that:

• The police violated mandatory procedural safeguards under Section 50 of the NDPS Act.
• The accused was improperly provided with a “third option” to be searched by the police, which is not recognized by law.
• There were inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution’s case, including testimonies of key witnesses, which rendered the case doubtful.

Analysis of the Law

The court analyzed Section 50 of the NDPS Act, which outlines the conditions for the search of a person:

• The law requires the officer conducting the search to inform the accused of their right to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer.
• The provision aims to ensure transparency and prevent misuse of power during the recovery process.

Precedents Considered

1. State of Rajasthan v. Parmanand (2014):
   • Held that providing a “third option” (search by police) undermines the statutory safeguard.
   • Stressed that searches must be conducted before an independent authority (Magistrate or Gazetted Officer).
2. Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat (2011):
   • Mandated strict compliance with Section 50, ruling that non-compliance renders the recovery suspect and inadmissible.
3. Arif Khan v. State of Uttarakhand (2018):
   • Emphasized that searches not conducted in the presence of a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer violate the NDPS Act.

Court’s Reasoning

The court noted:

1. Violation of Section 50:
   • The consent memo (Ex. PW5/A) did not explicitly state that the accused, after being informed of his rights, waived the option to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer. Instead, the accused was allowed to choose to be searched by the police, which is impermissible.
   • This “third option” undermined the safeguards intended to ensure fair and impartial recovery proceedings.
2. Contradictions in Evidence:
   • Key witnesses, including independent witnesses, did not fully corroborate the prosecution’s narrative.
   • The inconsistencies in testimonies raised doubts about the credibility of the recovery process.
3. Mandatory Compliance:
   • The court reiterated that procedural safeguards under Section 50 are not mere formalities but essential to protect the rights of the accused.
   • Non-compliance with these safeguards vitiates the recovery and renders it inadmissible.

Conclusion

The court upheld the trial court’s acquittal, holding that:

• The recovery of contraband was inadmissible due to procedural lapses.
• The State failed to prove compliance with mandatory provisions under the NDPS Act.

Implications of the Judgment

1. Strict Compliance:
   • Reinforces the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards in criminal cases under the NDPS Act.
   • Highlights that any deviation, such as offering impermissible search options, can lead to acquittals despite evidence of contraband.
2. Transparency and Accountability:
   • Ensures that the rights of the accused are safeguarded against potential misuse of power by law enforcement officials.
   • Affirms the role of independent authorities (Magistrates or Gazetted Officers) in maintaining fairness during search and recovery processes.
3. Legal Precedent:
   • Provides a reference for future cases involving alleged violations of Section 50, strengthening the procedural framework in NDPS cases.

Also Read – Supreme Court Dismisses Petitions Challenging Inclusion of ‘Socialist’ and ‘Secular’ in Preamble: “After 44 Years, These Terms Are Integral to the Constitution, Widely Accepted by the People and Reflected in Legislative and Policy Frameworks”