A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court in Jeet Ram v. Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh examined the legality of the High Court’s interference with an order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The trial court had acquitted the accused on grounds of alleged non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, absence of independent witnesses, doubts regarding conscious possession, and apprehension of sample tampering. The High Court reversed the acquittal, convicted the accused, and imposed a sentence of fifteen years’ rigorous imprisonment.

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction while modifying the sentence to ten years. The Court reaffirmed that Section 50 of the NDPS Act applies only to personal search and not to search of premises or articles. It reiterated that appellate courts possess full power to reappreciate evidence in appeals against acquittal when the trial court’s findings are perverse or contrary to evidence. The Court adopted a functional and purposive interpretation of “possession”, holding that conscious possession may be inferred from physical control and knowledge.

The judgment clarifies the scope of presumption under Section 54 of the NDPS Act, holding that once possession is established, the burden shifts to the accused to explain the same. The Court further observed that false answers under Section 313 CrPC can be used against the accused. While emphasizing the seriousness of narcotic offences, the Court exercised sentencing discretion considering the age of the accused and the passage of time.

Keywords: NDPS Act, Conscious Possession, Section 50 NDPS Act, Appeal Against Acquittal, Section 54 Presumption, Narcotics Law

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The judgment arose from an appeal filed by the sole accused challenging his conviction by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, which had reversed his acquittal by the Sessions Court. The case concerned the recovery of 13 kilograms of charas from a dhaba allegedly operated by the accused near a temple in Himachal Pradesh. The trial court acquitted the accused in 2003, primarily citing procedural lapses and evidentiary doubts.

The Narcotics Control Bureau invoked Section 36-B of the NDPS Act read with Section 378 CrPC to appeal against acquittal. The High Court reappreciated the entire evidence and convicted the accused in 2012. The appeal before the Supreme Court questioned the extent of appellate powers, the interpretation of Section 50 NDPS Act, and the concept of conscious possession.

The background reflects the recurring judicial tension between procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act and the societal need to curb narcotic offences. The judgment situates itself within established jurisprudence that balances strict statutory compliance with pragmatic appreciation of evidence. The Court was also called upon to evaluate sentencing proportionality in light of delay, age, and mitigating circumstances.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

On 18 June 2001, officers of the Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh stopped at a dhaba near Nangala Devi Temple while travelling from Shimla to Theog. PW-4, an Intelligence Officer, detected the smell of charas emanating from the premises. PW-1, the Zonal Director, soon joined the team. Upon questioning, the accused appeared nervous and attempted to flee.

A gunny bag was found beneath the counter of the dhaba. After issuing notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the bag was searched and 13 kg of charas was recovered. The contraband was properly weighed, sampled, sealed, and documented. The accused signed the seizure memo and samples. Chemical analysis confirmed the substance to be charas.

The accused made a statement under Section 67 NDPS Act admitting involvement in the trade. He was arrested on 19 June 2001. During trial, the defence claimed that the accused was merely a temple priest and not the owner of the dhaba.

The Sessions Court acquitted the accused, citing lack of independent witnesses, alleged non-compliance with Section 50, doubts regarding possession, and possibility of tampering. The High Court reversed these findings, leading to the present appeal.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the High Court was justified in reversing an order of acquittal by reappreciating evidence?
ii. Whether Section 50 of the NDPS Act was applicable to the search conducted?
iii. Whether the accused was in conscious possession of the seized charas?
iv. Whether absence of independent witnesses vitiated the prosecution case?
v. Whether presumption under Section 54 NDPS Act was correctly applied?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the appellant submitted that the trial court’s acquittal was based on a plausible view of evidence. It was argued that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by substituting its view merely because another interpretation was possible. Reliance was placed on Union of India v. Bal Mukund, Francis Stanly v. NCB, and Rangaiah v. State of Karnataka.

It was contended that the absence of independent witnesses rendered the prosecution case doubtful, especially when villages were nearby. The seizure from a gunny bag under the counter did not establish exclusive or conscious possession. Non-compliance with Section 50 NDPS Act was emphasized. The defence further argued that sentence of fifteen years was excessive considering age and occupation of the appellant.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the respondent submitted that the trial court’s findings were perverse and contrary to evidence. It was argued that appellate courts have unrestricted powers to reassess evidence in appeals against acquittal. Reliance was placed on Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan, Damodarprasad Chandrikaprasad v. State of Maharashtra, and Vinod Kumar v. State of Haryana.

It was argued that Section 50 NDPS Act was inapplicable as there was no personal search. Conscious possession was established through physical control and conduct of the accused. Absence of independent witnesses was justified due to the time and location of the incident.

H) JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court held that the trial court’s acquittal was based on erroneous appreciation of evidence. The Court reiterated that Section 50 NDPS Act applies only to personal search, relying on State of H.P. v. Pawan Kumar. The recovery from a gunny bag beneath the counter did not attract Section 50.

The Court accepted the High Court’s finding that the accused had both physical control and knowledge of the contraband. The testimonies of PW-1 to PW-4 were found consistent and credible. The apprehension of tampering was rejected as the samples bore judicial signatures and no suggestion of tampering was put to prosecution witnesses.

The Court reaffirmed that appellate courts can reverse acquittal where the trial court’s view is not reasonably possible. However, considering the age of the accused and the lapse of time since the incident, the sentence was reduced from 15 years to 10 years, while maintaining conviction and fine.

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

The core ratio of the judgment is that Section 50 NDPS Act is confined strictly to personal search. Searches of premises, containers, or articles do not attract its mandatory safeguards. The Court also held that conscious possession under the NDPS Act must be interpreted functionally, considering dominion, control, and knowledge.

Once possession is established, Section 54 NDPS Act raises a statutory presumption against the accused, shifting the burden to explain lawful possession. The Court further held that false explanations under Section 313 CrPC can reinforce prosecution evidence.

The judgment reinforces the principle that appellate courts possess full authority to reassess evidence in appeals against acquittal where the trial court’s findings are perverse or unsupported.

b) OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that narcotic offences have serious societal ramifications and courts must not adopt a hyper-technical approach that defeats legislative intent. It was noted that independent witnesses are not indispensable where official testimony is reliable. The Court also emphasized sentencing discretion, observing that proportionality must consider human factors such as age and delay.

c) GUIDELINES

i. Section 50 NDPS Act applies only to personal search.
ii. Conscious possession may be inferred from control and knowledge.
iii. Presumption under Section 54 NDPS Act applies once possession is proved.
iv. Appellate courts may reverse acquittal where findings are perverse.
v. Sentencing must balance deterrence with proportionality.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment significantly clarifies procedural and substantive aspects of NDPS jurisprudence. It strengthens prosecutorial reliance on official witnesses while maintaining procedural fairness. The Court’s purposive interpretation of possession and reaffirmation of appellate powers contribute to doctrinal clarity. The sentencing modification reflects judicial sensitivity without diluting statutory objectives.

J) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred

1. Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan, [1961] 3 SCR 120
2. Damodarprasad Chandrikaprasad v. State of Maharashtra, [1972] 2 SCR 622
3. Vinod Kumar v. State of Haryana, [2015] 1 SCR 328
4. Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, [2015] 5 SCR 435
5. State of H.P. v. Pawan Kumar, [2005] 3 SCR 417

b) Important Statutes Referred

1. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973