The Supreme Court of India on Monday, March 16, upheld the acquittal of Surat Singh in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The Court ruled that offering an accused the option to be personally searched by a police officer violates Section 50 of the Act. In particular, the Court clarified that personal searches must occur either before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer, and no other alternative is legally permissible.
A Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale dismissed the State of Himachal Pradesh’s appeal, thereby affirming the High Court’s acquittal of the accused under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
“The police offered the accused the choice to be personally searched either before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. Furthermore, they asked whether he wanted to be searched by the Investigating Officer in the presence of witnesses listed in Ext. PW-1/A. Section 50 of the NDPS Act allows only the choice of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. Therefore, offering a third option to be searched by a police officer misrepresents the law. Consequently, this consent violated Section 50 and vitiated the entire trial,” the Bench endorsed the High Court’s reasoning.
Case Background
According to the prosecution, a police team, returning from checkpoint duty near Dhangu Dhank, Himachal Pradesh, spotted Surat Singh carrying a backpack. When the accused noticed the police, he allegedly tried to flee. Subsequently, the officers apprehended him and searched the bag, recovering a plastic packet of charas in balls and sticks, weighing approximately 11 kilograms and 50 grams. The police sealed the contraband and sent it for forensic examination.
Based on this recovery, the police charged the accused under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, 1985. Initially, the trial court convicted him, sentencing him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and imposing a fine of ₹1 lakh. However, the High Court overturned the conviction, noting that the police did not comply with Section 50, particularly because they offered the accused the impermissible option of being personally searched by a police officer.
Supreme Court Decision
Writing for the Bench, Justice Varale held that the police violated Section 50. The Court emphasized that the law requires the accused to choose only between a Magistrate and a Gazetted Officer. Accordingly, allowing an additional option to be searched by a police officer distorts the legal rights of the accused and invalidates his consent, thereby undermining the trial process.
Furthermore, the Bench cited Suresh and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2013) 1 SCC 550, observing:
“When the accused consented to a personal search by a police officer rather than a Gazetted Officer, it constituted non-compliance with Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act.”
In addition, the Court clarified that presenting an impermissible alternative negates statutory protection, making any consent legally ineffective. Therefore, the Supreme Court dismissed the State’s appeal and upheld the acquittal of Surat Singh.
Case Title: THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VERSUS SURAT SINGH
Citation: 2026 INSC 246
Also Read: Maternity Benefits Adoptive Mothers: SC Strikes Down 3-Month Rule
