NDPS Act Conviction Upheld: Supreme Court Rejects Appeal in Opium Possession Case

On January 19, 2016, the Supreme Court of India delivered its judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2016, affirming the conviction of the appellant, Surender @ Kala, under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The case revolved around the possession of 1 kg of opium without any permit or license and raised legal questions about the role of investigating officers and fair trial procedures.

Background of the Case

On June 24, 2002, police officials received secret information that Surender @ Kala was engaged in selling opium and was looking for customers in Village Bichpar, Sonipat, Haryana. Acting on this information, a police team led by Sub-Inspector Satbir Singh apprehended the appellant near the village bus stand.

The appellant was informed of his right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. He opted for the presence of a Gazetted Officer, and accordingly, DSP Shyam Singh Rana was called to the spot. A personal search was conducted in his presence, leading to the recovery of 1 kg 50 grams of opium tied in a polythene bag around the appellant’s stomach.

Trial Court Proceedings

After the seizure, legal proceedings were initiated under Section 18 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution presented six witnesses, including the investigating officers and forensic experts.

The Special Judge, Sonipat, upon examining the evidence, found the appellant guilty and sentenced him to 5 years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹10,000. In case of non-payment, the appellant was directed to undergo an additional 8 months of imprisonment.

Appeal Before the High Court

Challenging his conviction, the appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. S-318-SB of 2004 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The primary argument was that SI Satbir Singh, the investigating officer, was also the complainant, which raised concerns about the fairness of the investigation.

The High Court, however, upheld the trial court’s decision, stating that the procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act, including search in the presence of a Gazetted Officer, were followed. The appeal was thus dismissed on December 11, 2014.

Arguments Before the Supreme Court

The appellant then moved the Supreme Court, raising the same contention that the investigation was biased since the complainant and the investigating officer were the same person. His defense relied on the precedents set in Megha Singh v. State of Haryana and State v. Rajangam, where similar concerns had led to acquittals.

The prosecution, however, countered this argument, emphasizing that the search was conducted in the presence of a senior police officer (DSP Shyam Singh Rana) and that the procedural requirements were met.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

After reviewing the case, the Supreme Court rejected the appellant’s argument. It distinguished the present case from Megha Singh and State v. Rajangam, noting that the latter cases involved procedural lapses, while the current case followed legal safeguards.

The Court ruled:

“Having gone through the entirety of the matter, we do not find any reason to differ from the view taken by the High Court. We therefore dismiss this appeal.”

With this ruling, the conviction and sentence of the appellant under the NDPS Act were upheld.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

• The Supreme Court reinforced that procedural compliance under the NDPS Act is critical in drug-related offenses.
• The presence of a Gazetted Officer during searches strengthens the credibility of evidence.
• Allegations of bias in the investigation must be supported by strong evidence.

This case sets a precedent for handling NDPS Act cases, ensuring that investigative procedures are conducted within the legal framework while maintaining the integrity of the prosecution.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Surender @ Kala vs State of Haryana Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 19-01-2016.pdf