State of Himachal Pradesh vs Surat Singh 2026 INSC 240 - S.50 NDPS Act - Third Option Of IO Search - Bag Search
NDPS Act 1986 - Section 50 - If merely a bag is carried by person is searched without there being any search of his person, S. 50 will have no application but if bag carried by him is searched and his person is also searched, S. 50 would be attracted. [Quoted from State of Rajasthan versus Parmanand ] (Para 17-18) [Context: The Himachal Pradesh High Court acquitted the accused on the grounds that Section 50 NDPS Act was not properly complied with—because a third option of being searched by the police officer was wrongly offered—and because the prosecution version about using an electronic weighing scale was contradicted by the independent witness - The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s acquittal, holding that the non‑compliance with Section 50 and doubts about the search and weighing process rendered the prosecution case unreliable]
Case Info
Case Information
Case name and neutral citation:The State of Himachal Pradesh vs Surat Singh, 2026 INSC 240 (Non-reportable)
Coram:Two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India: Justice Prasanna B. Varale (authoring the judgment) and Justice Pankaj Mithal.
Judgment date:16 March 2026, Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2018.
Case Laws Cited (with citations)
- Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, (2000) 2 SCC 513
- State of Punjab v. Makhan Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 453
- Suresh and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2013) 1 SCC 550
- Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat, Constitution Bench (referred to in extract, citation not repeated in text but known as (2011) 1 SCC 609)
- State of Rajasthan v. Parmanand and another, (2014) 5 SCC 345
- Sanjeet Kumar Singh @ Munna Kumar Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2022) 16 SCC 58
- State of Rajasthan v. Kistoora Ram, (2023) 18 SCC 87
Statutes / Laws Referred
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act)
- Section 20 – offence relating to possession of cannabis/charas
- Section 50 – conditions for search of persons and the requirement to apprise the accused of the right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer
- Section 54 – presumption from possession of illicit articles and reverse burden on the accused
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.)
- Section 313 – examination of accused
Brief Summary (Three Sentences)
The case arose from a seizure of 11.5 kg of charas allegedly recovered from a bag carried by the accused during a police nakabandi in Himachal Pradesh, leading to his conviction by the Special Judge under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. The Himachal Pradesh High Court acquitted the accused on the grounds that Section 50 NDPS Act was not properly complied with—because a third option of being searched by the police officer was wrongly offered—and because the prosecution version about using an electronic weighing scale was contradicted by the independent witness (PW‑8). The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s acquittal, holding that the non‑compliance with Section 50 and doubts about the search and weighing process rendered the prosecution case unreliable, and therefore the State’s appeal was dismissed.
