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).
A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that when a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance is seized mixed with neutral substances, the weight of the whole mixture, not just the pure drug content, decides whether it is a small or commercial quantity. E. Micheal Raj was held not good law, and the 2009 notification adding Note 4 was upheld as clarificatory (paras 8.2, 9, 10).
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act in the personal search of an accused does not invalidate contraband recovered from a vehicle, where that recovery stands proved independently. Section 50 applies only to a personal search, not to a vehicle, container or premises. The Court held Dilip v. State of M.P. to be not correct, restored the conviction and reduced the sentence to ten years (paras 16-20).
Finding that only 16% of drugs seized between 2002 and 2012 had been disposed of, the Supreme Court issued nationwide directions on the sampling, storage and disposal of seized narcotics. Under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, samples must be drawn in the presence and under the supervision of a Magistrate, who certifies them. Governments were directed to set up secure storage within six months, and stocks in concluded cases were ordered destroyed (paras 13, 15, 19-20).
The Supreme Court set aside an NDPS conviction because the officer who raided the accused's house on secret information never recorded that information or reported it to his superior under Section 42. The State argued that the FIR, sent to the Superintendent of Police the same day, was enough. The Court held that the Section 42 procedure is separate from the Code of Criminal Procedure, and compliance with one does not show compliance with the other (paras 11, 13).
The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of two men from whom 9.6 kg of opium was recovered, holding that Section 50 of the NDPS Act was breached. A joint written notice, signed by one accused for both, is not a valid communication of the right; each person must be told individually. Offering a third option of search before a superintendent of the raiding party was also improper. Because both the bag and the persons were searched, Section 50 applied (paras 12, 14-15).
A five-Judge Constitution Bench held that Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act obliges the empowered officer to inform a suspect of his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, and that this obligation is mandatory and requires strict compliance. Merely asking whether the suspect wishes to be so searched is not enough, and the "substantial compliance" view in Joseph Fernandez and Prabha Shankar Dubey was rejected (paras 18, 21-22).
The Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition against a conviction for six bags of poppy husk of 32 kg each. It held that a wireless message to the DSP on reaching the spot, followed by a ruqa sent from the spot on which the FIR was registered, was substantial compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act, as no prejudice was shown. Section 57 is not mandatory, and conscious possession was proved (paras 12-15).
A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana, (2009) 8 SCC 539, resolved the conflict between Abdul Rashid and Sajan Abraham on Section 42 of the NDPS Act. Information must ordinarily be written down and sent to the superior officer before a search, but if it is received on the move and calls for immediate action, recording may follow. Total non-compliance is impermissible; delayed compliance with a satisfactory explanation is acceptable (paras 11, 17).
The Supreme Court has upheld a man's conviction for possessing opium under the NDPS Act, rejecting the High Court's finding that he had conspired with a co-accused to jointly possess a larger quantity. It held there was no evidence of conspiracy, but independently found the 920 grams recovered from him alone already exceeded the commercial-quantity threshold for an opium derivative.
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of an electricity board engineer for accepting a Rs 150 bribe in a 1985 trap, restating when it will disturb concurrent findings under Article 136. The courts below wrongly discarded proof that he was on leave on the date of an earlier alleged payment, and his defence that the notes were planted in a shirt hanging in the room was probable, especially as the notes were not treated with phenolphthalein (paras 11, 19-22, 26).
Resolving a split between two judges, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that Section 50 of the NDPS Act applies only to a search of the person, meaning the human body with its clothing and footwear. A bag, briefcase or other container carried by the accused is not part of his person, so Section 50 does not apply to its search. Both State appeals were allowed and remitted to the High Courts (paras 9-10, 23-24).