Section 50

The Supreme Court acquitted a man convicted of supplying poppy straw, holding that Section 52A of the NDPS Act is a mandatory rule of evidence: inventories, photographs and samples count as primary evidence only when certified by a Magistrate. The seized material was never produced, no Magistrate's order existed, panch witnesses turned hostile, and a police witness said the contraband was at the station before the raid (paras 5-14).

The Rajasthan High Court quashed a 1990 conviction for 8.5 kg of opium, holding that police who set out to search a shop and house needed a warrant or recorded grounds under Section 42 of the NDPS Act, even though the accused was caught on the road outside. The Court found the recovery proved and Section 50 complied with, but the Section 42 breach made the search void (paras 32, 48, 53-61).

The Supreme Court restored the acquittal of two men whom the Himachal Pradesh High Court had convicted for possessing 1.5 kg of charas (paras 1, 3, 11). The High Court had reappraised the evidence without dealing with the reasons that weighed with the Trial Court, although an acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence and an appellate court must be "extremely slow" to interfere where two views are possible (paras 7-8).

The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal against a ganja conviction in which the accused argued that offering him a third option of search by the officer himself, outside Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act, vitiated the recovery (paras 1, 4, 6). As the contraband was found in a polythene bag carried on a kanwad and "The recovery was not in person", the Court declined to extend the Section 50 principle to recoveries made otherwise (para 5).

The Supreme Court upheld a conviction for possessing 900 grams of smack found beneath the seat of a motorcycle stopped by a police patrol (paras 2-4, 19). It held that the seizure was "a chance recovery on a public road" governed by Section 43 of the NDPS Act, that Section 50 applies to a personal search and not to a vehicle, and that ownership of the motorcycle and non-production of the contraband did not help the accused (paras 11-15).

The Supreme Court set aside bail granted by the Allahabad High Court to an accused found travelling from Dimapur towards Rampur in a car with 3.3 kg of morphine hidden near its wiper. That nothing was recovered from his person, and that the translator's endorsement on his Section 67 statement named a co-accused, did not meet the Section 37 test of reasonable grounds to believe he was not guilty (paras 21, 25, 30-32).

The Supreme Court acquitted three men convicted under Section 15 of the NDPS Act after 75 kg of poppy straw was found in a private jeep on a public road. A private vehicle is not a public place under the Explanation to Section 43, so Section 42 applied; the officer admittedly never recorded the secret information in writing, and total non-compliance with Section 42 is impermissible (paras 12-15).

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Rajesh Dhiman and Gulshan Rana for possessing 3.1 kg of charas found in a backpack, dismissing their appeals against the High Court's reversal of their acquittal. Following the Constitution Bench in Mukesh Singh, it held that a complainant who also investigates does not by that fact alone taint the case, called the claim that the bag belonged to a vanished stranger fanciful, and sent both back to custody (paras 10, 16, 22).

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's reversal of an acquittal for possessing 13 kg of charas found in a gunny bag under a dhaba counter. The trial court's findings were contrary to the evidence and its view was not possible at all (paras 10-11). Section 50 applies only to personal search, and the accused at the counter was in conscious possession (paras 10-11). The 15-year sentence was reduced to ten years (para 13).

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a man found with 20 kg of ganja on his motorcycle, although both independent panch witnesses turned hostile. The evidence of police witnesses found reliable and trustworthy can sustain a conviction; the law does not require it to be corroborated by independent witnesses (para 8). Failure to prove who owned the motorcycle, or to recover it later, does not vitiate the trial (para 11). The five-year sentence was not reduced (para 12).

The Supreme Court upheld Than Kunwar's conviction under Section 18 of the NDPS Act for carrying 6.3 kg of opium in a bag. Following Baljinder Singh, it held that Section 50 does not apply to a recovery from a bag even if the person was also searched, and, following Sahi Ram, that not producing the bulk contraband in court is not fatal where the seizure and the samples are otherwise proved (paras 21, 29-31).

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court upheld a conviction under Section 18 of the NDPS Act for possessing 1 kg 750 grams of opium (paras 4, 17). The chain of evidence was complete although the officer who took the sealed case property to the Magistrate was not examined; the search in an ASP's presence complied with Section 50 although the ASP was never examined; and the absence of independent witnesses did not show false implication (paras 10-15).