Section 20 NDPS Act: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal Over Doubts in Seizure and Identity of Contraband

The Supreme Court has upheld the Himachal Pradesh High Court's acquittal of a man charged under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, agreeing that the absence of independent witnesses to a seizure made on a national highway and serious gaps in the chain of custody of the seized contraband created reasonable doubt about the arrest, search, seizure and identity of the case property.

A Bench of Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and Sanjeev Sachdeva dismissed an appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the high court's June 4, 2015 judgment, which had set aside the trial court's conviction of Kansara Mayur. The trial court had sentenced him to 10 years' imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh.

"This court after carefully considering the evidence on record and after its detailed analysis, is of the firm opinion that the high court was justified in acquitting the accused of the charges framed against him as the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt," the Bench said.

Why did the Supreme Court uphold the NDPS acquittal?

Court said it had carefully examined the testimony of the witnesses recorded before the trial court as well as the high court's detailed judgment, which had minutely analysed the evidence of each witness.

Also Read| Section 37 NDPS Act Conditions Mandatory Before Bail in Commercial Quantity Cases: Supreme Court

The Bench noted that the high court found the accused was apprehended on National Highway-21, a busy road. According to the prosecution, on October 15, 2011, a police party stopped the accused, who was carrying a bag in his right hand. On seeing the police, he allegedly tried to flee but was overpowered.

The investigating officer had stopped passing vehicles and requested their occupants to act as witnesses. However, despite the recovery allegedly taking place on a busy national highway, no independent witness was associated with the arrest, search or seizure.

The high court had observed that this was not a case where the recovery was made from an isolated or secluded place. Since independent witnesses were readily available, the police ought to have associated them with the proceedings. The high court, therefore, found this omission sufficient to cast doubt on the arrest, search and seizure, the Supreme Court noted.

What were the chain of custody lapses in the NDPS case?

The Supreme Court also agreed with the high court's findings regarding serious deficiencies in maintaining the chain of custody of the seized contraband.

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

It noted that there was no entry in the malkhana register showing when the case property was taken out for production before the trial court or when it was returned and re-deposited. There was also no evidence identifying the person who produced the case property before the court.

The high court had further found that such movements of the case property were required to be recorded in Form-19. It also noted that no DPR report had been prepared either when the case property was produced before the court or when it was returned to the malkhana.

According to the Supreme Court, these missing records created serious doubts about the identity and handling of the seized contraband. In these circumstances, the high court rightly concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Finding no reason to interfere with the high court's conclusions, the Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeal and affirmed the acquittal.

Case Title: The State of Himachal Pradesh Vs Kansara Mayur

Bench: Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and Sanjeev Sachdeva

Date of Judgment: June 10, 2026