The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive affirmation that procedural rigour under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act is not a formality but a constitutional safeguard. In acquitting a Russian national convicted of smuggling charas, the Court underscored that failure to comply with mandatory search and seizure protocols invalidates the entire prosecution case, regardless of the quantity of contraband involved.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, a Russian national, was arrested on 6 November 2016 near Border Pillar No.517/2 on the Indo-Nepal border after the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) detected 1.900 kg of charas in his bag. He was subsequently charged under Sections 8, 20, and 23 of the NDPS Act. He claimed he was detained the previous day in no man’s land, refused to bribe police, and was falsely implicated after authorities took his pet dog. His passport showed exit from Nepal on 5 November 2016 but contained no entry stamp into India.
Procedural History
- 2017: Trial Court convicted and sentenced him to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1 lakh
- 2020: Allahabad High Court upheld the conviction, dismissing discrepancies as "minor"
- 2025: Special Leave Petition filed in the Supreme Court challenging the legality of the search and seizure
Relief Sought
The appellant sought acquittal on grounds of procedural violations under the NDPS Act, violation of Section 50 of the Act, breach of Section 57 of the Cr.P.C., and failure to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a search and seizure conducted under the NDPS Act can sustain a conviction when the mandatory procedural safeguards - such as informing the accused of rights before search, obtaining written consent prior to detection, and documenting entry into Indian territory - are systematically violated.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Sh. R.P. Luthra argued that the search was conducted before the accused was informed of his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, violating Section 50 of the NDPS Act. He highlighted that the consent letter was signed only after detection, the translation was done by the same officer who found the contraband, and the passport lacked entry endorsement. He relied on State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh and K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India to assert that procedural irregularities go to the root of the case.
For the Respondent
The State contended that the accused confessed to possessing charas for sale, the quantity was substantial (worth Rs.23 lakhs), and minor inconsistencies in witness testimony did not undermine the core evidence. It argued that the SSB and police acted in good faith under exigent border conditions and that the conviction was rightly upheld by two lower courts.
The Court's Analysis
The Court meticulously dissected the sequence of events as testified by PW1 to PW3. It found that the contraband was detected before the accused was informed of his rights under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, rendering the subsequent "consent" legally meaningless. The consent letter, allegedly written in Hindi and translated into English by PW3 (the same officer who detected the contraband), bore no signature of any SSB or police personnel present. This created an irrebuttable conflict: consent cannot follow detection if the law requires prior notification.
"The attempt is to say that the detection was separate from actual seizure. However the contraband being inside the bag of the accused there was no possibility of detection without a search having been carried out. Obviously, the mandatory stipulation for search and seizure as per the NDPS Act was not carried out in its true letter and spirit."
The Court further noted the absence of any entry endorsement in the passport despite the accused being taken into custody at the border - a duty under Section 57 of the Cr.P.C. The failure to record the presence of the pet dog in the Mahazar, coupled with the lack of any mention of the bag in the recovery memo, compounded the unreliability of the prosecution’s narrative. The Court held that these were not "minor" discrepancies but foundational defects that created reasonable doubt.
The Verdict
The appellant won. The Supreme Court acquitted him, holding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to grave violations of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and procedural irregularities under the Cr.P.C. The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the accused was ordered to be released forthwith. His original passport was directed to be returned.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
- Practitioners must now treat Section 50 of the NDPS Act as a non-waivable right, not a formality
- Any search conducted before informing the accused of their right to a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate renders evidence inadmissible
- Consent obtained post-detection is legally void and cannot cure prior illegality
Documentary Gaps Create Reasonable Doubt
- Absence of passport entry stamps, missing entries in Mahazars, or unaccounted personal items (e.g., pets) must be raised as material contradictions
- Courts will no longer accept "minor" discrepancies when they relate to chain of custody or constitutional safeguards
- Defence counsel should systematically cross-examine on documentary omissions, not just witness credibility
Burden of Proof Remains With the State
- Even in high-value drug cases, the burden of proving compliance with statutory procedures never shifts to the accused
- The Court reaffirmed that reasonable doubt arises not from the absence of proof of innocence, but from the presence of unexplained procedural failures
- Prosecutors must now maintain meticulous, contemporaneous records of every step under the NDPS Act to avoid acquittals on technical grounds
