The Supreme Court recently acquitted the accused in a Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) case, citing the non-compliance of the requirement to afford an option to be searched before a Magistrate or a competent Gazetted Officer. The verdict, rendered in the case of Sanjeev vs State of Himachal Pradesh (CrA 870 OF 2016), delivered on 9 March 2022, marked a significant development in criminal jurisprudence.
Supreme Court Acquits Accused in NDPS Case: Non-Compliance Leads to Acquittal
Background of the Case – Sanjeev vs State of Himachal Pradesh
- The accused had initially been acquitted by the Trial Court, which observed that the police had failed to offer them the option to be searched before a Magistrate or a competent Gazetted Officer.
- However, the High Court, upon an appeal filed by the State, overturned the acquittal and convicted the accused.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
- During the appeal filed by the accused, the court noted that the arrest memos did not indicate that any option or choice had been given to the accused before their personal search was conducted.
- Despite the absence of any recovery of contraband material during the personal search, the court highlighted the significance of non-compliance with the requirement to offer the option for search.
- Furthermore, the court criticized the High Court for not considering the reasons that had led to the acquittal by the Trial Court.
- Emphasizing the importance of respecting the Trial Court’s decision, the bench outlined the following approach to be adopted while dealing with appeals against acquittals:
- The reasons behind the Trial Court’s decision must be addressed comprehensively if the appellate Court intends to overturn the acquittal.
- An order of acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence in a criminal matter.
- The appellate Court should exercise caution when considering appeals against acquittals, especially if two plausible interpretations of the evidence exist.
Verdict and Legal Significance
The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision and acquitted the accused based on its findings. This case highlights the need for following legal procedures even without finding contraband.
Headnotes
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 50
- Personal search did not result in recovery of any contraband material but the non-compliance of requirement of affording an option to be searched before a Magistrate of a competent Gazetted Officer – Accused acquitted.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 378
- Appeal against Acquittal – Reviewing an acquittal, the appellate court must analyze the trial court’s reasoning for acquitting the accused. In fact, This ensures fair review of the acquittal decision. An acquittal by the Trial Court strengthens the presumption of innocence in criminal cases. Furthermore, when evidence has two meanings, the appellate court must be careful. This translates to avoiding quick decisions in appeals against acquittals. In other words, the appellate court should take a cautious approach in such cases.
Case Details
Case: Sanjeev vs State of Himachal Pradesh
Citation: 2022
Coram: Justices UU Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, and PS Narasimha
Counsel: Sr. Adv A. Sirajudeen, assisted by Adv S. Mahendran and Adv Parnam Prabhakar, Adv Aditya Dhawan for the appellants; Adv Abhinav Mukerji for the State.
