File photo: Supreme Court of India, New Delhi
Photo: Subhashish Panigrahi
Source: Wikimedia Commons
Licence: CC BY-SA 4.0
Judgment Intelligence
Acquittal UpheldState of Rajasthan v. Tara Singh
Criminal Appeal No. 262 of 2006
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 29 March 2011
- Bench
- Justices Harjit Singh Bedi and Chandramauli Kr. Prasad
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 8, 15, 50
Final Outcome
Appeal dismissed. The High Court's acquittal was upheld because the sanctity of the samples had been compromised; the respondent, who was on bail, had his bail bonds discharged (para 2).
Key holdings
- Section 50 of the NDPS Act does not apply to a search of a bag carried on the head, following State of H.P. v. Pawan Kumar (para 2).
- How and where samples were stored, and when they were sent to and received at the laboratory, is a matter of great importance in NDPS cases (para 2).
- Samples removed from the Malkhana on 26 February but received at the laboratory only on 9 March, with no reliable explanation, had their sanctity compromised (para 2).
- A doubt about the samples was enough to sustain the acquittal even though the Section 50 ground failed (para 2).
Brief Facts
On 2 February 1988, on an informer's tip, a police party from police station Sangdia intercepted Tara Singh near Jhandewalan Sikhan carrying a white bag, which was found to contain 8 kg of opium (para 1.1). He was offered a search under Section 50 and chose to be searched before the Station in charge. Samples went to the laboratory and the rest to the Malkhana. The trial court convicted him under Sections 8/15 and imposed 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1 lakh. The High Court acquitted him, holding that Section 50 had not been complied with and that nothing showed where the samples were between 26 February and 9 March 1998, as the order records the dates (para 1.1).
Court's Findings
The Supreme Court held that the High Court's Section 50 finding could not stand. Following State of Himachal Pradesh v. Pawan Kumar, (2005) 4 SCC 350, Section 50 does not apply to a search or seizure of an article not carried on the person of the accused, and here the opium was carried on the head in a bag (para 2). The second ground, however, called for no interference. On the prosecution's own case the samples left the Malkhana on 26 February and should have reached the laboratory the next day, yet they arrived on 9 March. The High Court had disbelieved the Malkhana in-charge (PW-6) and the constable who carried the samples (PW-9), who said the samples were taken out only on 9 March, and found no reliable evidence of the authenticity of the forwarding letter of 26 February, so the samples had been in unknown custody in between (para 2). The Court stressed that in NDPS prosecutions, how and where samples were stored, and when they were dispatched to and received at the laboratory, is of great importance because of the heavy penalties involved (para 2).
Legal Principle
Section 50 of the NDPS Act does not apply when contraband is carried in a bag rather than on the person. But the prosecution must account for the storage and movement of samples from seizure to the laboratory; an unexplained gap in their custody compromises their sanctity and casts doubt on the prosecution case (para 2).
Precedents Relied Upon
- State of Himachal Pradesh v. Pawan Kumar (2005) 4 SCC 350
Section 50 of the NDPS Act does not apply to any search or seizure where the article is not carried on the person of the accused; applied to opium carried on the head in a gunny bag.
