Section 50 NDPS Act: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal of Man Over Illegal Search Procedure

The Supreme Court recently upheld the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision acquitting a man accused of carrying 11 kg and 50 grams of charas in Shimla in 2013, holding that the mandatory safeguards under Section 50 of the NDPS Act were violated during the search.

A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B Varale dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the high court’s October 10, 2015 judgment, which had set aside the conviction and 10-year sentence awarded to Surat Singh by the trial court in 2014.

According to the prosecution, a police team conducting nakabandi on March 13, 2013 apprehended the accused with a bag allegedly containing charas. Based on the evidence placed on record, the trial court had convicted and sentenced him.

However, while hearing the appeal, the high court found that although the accused was allegedly caught with a bag containing charas, he was also personally searched in the presence of the investigating officer.

According to Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the accused has to be apprised of his legal right to be searched either before the magistrate or the gazetted officer. There is no third option to be searched before the Police Officer.

The high court observed that the consent obtained from the accused was therefore not in compliance with Section 50.

The investigating officer, by giving the accused the additional option of being searched before a police officer, had acted contrary to the provisions of the NDPS Act, the high court held. It further ruled that this violation vitiated the entire trial.

Before the Supreme Court, the counsel appearing for the State argued that the trial court’s conviction was based on proper appreciation of evidence and there was no reason for the high court to interfere with it.

On the other hand, counsel for the accused supported the high court’s findings and reiterated that Section 50 only permits search before a magistrate or a gazetted officer, and not before a police officer.

After considering the submissions and examining the record, the Supreme Court said the high court had committed no error in assessing the evidence and the legal position.

The Bench also observed that the oral testimony of witnesses clearly showed that the investigating officer had acted contrary to the statutory procedure prescribed under law.

Apart from the Section 50 violation, Court also pointed to inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case regarding the weighing of the contraband. It noted that one prosecution witness admitted there was no electronic weighing scale in the shop and that only a traditional weighing scale was available. This contradicted the prosecution’s claim that an electronic weighing scale had been used to weigh the seized charas, making the prosecution story doubtful.

Also Read| SC Reduces Sentence in NDPS Case After Doubt Over Weighing Procedure, Upholds Conviction

Also Read| 50 Kg Cocaine Case Bail Set Aside: SC Says High Court Ignored Tough NDPS Requirements

Case Title: State of Himachal Pradesh Vs Surat Singh

Bench: Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B Varale 

Date of judgment: March 16, 2026