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

The Supreme Court recently upheld the conviction of a Himachal Pradesh man for possessing charas but reduced his sentence to the period already undergone, citing uncertainty over whether the electronic scale used during the recovery was properly recalibrated before weighing the contraband.

Court observed that this lack of clarity created a narrow but significant doubt regarding whether the quantity recovered actually exceeded the threshold of commercial quantity under the NDPS Act.

A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra delivered the judgment while partly allowing an appeal filed by Dharam Singh, whose conviction and ten-year rigorous imprisonment sentence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act had been affirmed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court in 2023. Singh has already spent nearly seven years in custody.

The prosecution case began with what the police described as a chance encounter. Singh, allegedly carrying a bag, reportedly panicked upon seeing the police and attempted to flee. Officers said he threw the bag during the chase and that it was later opened to reveal material resembling charas. A body search that followed did not yield any contraband. The bag’s contents were said to weigh 1 kilogram and 80 grams, placing it above the 1-kilogram threshold that constitutes “commercial quantity” under the NDPS Act, triggering the statute’s stringent minimum sentencing provisions.

Before the Supreme Court, Singh’s counsel challenged both the mode of recovery and the manner in which the weighing was conducted. It was submitted that the appellant was not offered the mandatory option of being searched before a magistrate as required under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, although the Court ultimately did not see this as fatal because the recovery was made from the bag allegedly discarded by the appellant and not from his person.

More significantly, the defence argued that only 80 grams stood between the seized quantity and the statutory threshold for commercial quantity, and that this marginal excess could be explained by improper weighing. The bench was told that the electronic scale used by the police showed no recorded proof of zero calibration, a necessary step to ensure accuracy, especially when the recovered material was wrapped in plastic, which itself could add weight.

The State countered that the weighing was conducted in Singh’s presence without objection and that the Forensic Science Laboratory had confirmed the seized substance was charas. It argued that the absence of explicit proof of recalibration should not override the weight recorded at the time of seizure.

After examining the record, the Supreme Court agreed that there was no reason to disturb the conviction. However, it found the defence argument on weighing irregularities compelling. The bench noted that the prosecution had not produced evidence to show that the electronic scale had been reset to zero before use, thereby raising a limited but relevant doubt regarding the precise weight. Given that the excess quantity was only 80 grams, court held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of this doubt solely for the purpose of sentencing.

In its order, court said that although the conviction would stand, the sentence would be modified to the period already undergone. It directed that Singh be released from custody unless required in any other case.

Case Title: Dharam Singh Vs The State of Himachal Pradesh

Judgment Date: November 10, 2025

Bench: Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra