- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of Rajasthan v. Tara Singh .
Factual and Procedural Background
On 2 February 1988, at approximately 5:00 p.m., the Station House Officer of Police Station Sangdia received information that Tara Singh would be transporting opium near Jhandewalan Sikhan River. A raiding party was formed, and at about 6:00 p.m. the police spotted the respondent carrying a white bag. Upon seeing the officers, the respondent attempted to flee, was apprehended, and identified himself as Tara Singh. After being offered a search in terms of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the Act”), he elected to be searched by the Station House Officer. The bag was found to contain 8 kg of opium. Samples were drawn and the remainder stored in the malkhana.
Following investigation, the respondent was charged under Sections 8/15 of the Act. The trial court convicted him, imposing ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1 lakh. On appeal, the Rajasthan High Court acquitted him, finding non-compliance with Section 50 and an unexplained delay in forwarding the samples to the forensic laboratory. The State of Rajasthan then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Section 50 of the NDPS Act applies when contraband is carried in a bag on the head rather than on the person of the accused.
- Whether an unexplained delay and break in the chain of custody of seized samples vitiates the prosecution case.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant (State of Rajasthan)
- Relied on State of H.P. v. Pawan Kumar (2005) 4 SCC 350 to contend that Section 50 applies only to personal searches and therefore the High Court erred in holding the search illegal.
Respondent (Tara Singh)
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent’s legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| State of H.P. v. Pawan Kumar, (2005) 4 SCC 350 | Section 50 of the NDPS Act does not apply when the contraband is not carried on the person but in a container or bag. | The Supreme Court accepted that, in light of this precedent, the High Court’s first ground for acquittal (non-compliance with Section 50) was unsustainable. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court analyzed the two grounds on which the High Court had acquitted the respondent:
- Applicability of Section 50: Citing Pawan Kumar, the Court held that Section 50 does not govern searches of containers or bags not carried on the person. Accordingly, the High Court’s reliance on Section 50 was misplaced.
- Chain of Custody of Samples: The Court found no explanation for the 11-day gap between the purported removal of samples from the malkhana on 26 February 1998 and their receipt at the laboratory on 9 March 1998. The prosecution failed to establish in whose custody the samples remained during this period, compromising their integrity. Given the severe penalties under the NDPS Act, the Court emphasised the critical importance of preserving and documenting sample custody. It upheld the High Court’s finding that the sanctity of the samples had been compromised, creating reasonable doubt in the prosecution case.
Because the second ground alone was sufficient to sustain the acquittal, the Court declined to interfere with the High Court’s decision.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s acquittal of the respondent. His bail bonds were ordered to stand discharged.
Implications: The decision underscores the judiciary’s strict demand for an unbroken and well-documented chain of custody in NDPS prosecutions. While clarifying that Section 50 does not apply to searches of bags or containers, the Court reaffirms that any lapse in handling seized samples can prove fatal to the prosecution’s case. No new legal precedent was set beyond reinforcing existing standards.
Order
1. This appeal against acquittal filed by the State of Rajasthan arises out of the following facts: at about 5.00 p.m on 2-2-1988 the Station in charge of Police Station Sangdia received information through an informer that one Tara Singh would be coming near Jhandewalan Sikhan River, carrying opium. The necessary entries, etc. were made in the police station register and a raiding party was organised by the police officer. As the raiding party reached near Jhandewalan Sikhan at 6.00 p.m a person carrying a white-coloured bag was seen coming from the opposite side and on seeing the police party took a sudden turn and started running away. He was chased and apprehended and on enquiry revealed his name as Tara Singh, the respondent herein. An offer of a search in terms of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called “the Act”), was, accordingly, made to him and he stated that he would like to be searched in the presence of the Station-in-charge himself. He was, accordingly, searched and the bag that he was carrying was found to contain 8 kg of opium. Samples of the opium were taken out and sent to the laboratory for analysis and the balance was deposited in the malkhana.
2. On the completion of the investigation, the respondent was charged under Sections 8/15 of the Act and was brought to trial. The trial court relying on the evidence of several witnesses who had constituted the raiding party as also the report of the laboratory, held that the case against the respondent had been proved beyond doubt. He was, accordingly, sentenced to 10 years' RI and to a fine of Rs 1 lakh.
3. An appeal was thereafter filed by the respondent in the High Court. The High Court allowed the appeal on two grounds: (i) that the provisions of Section 50 of the Act had not been complied with and the offer to the accused that he could be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or Magistrate had not been made to him; and (ii) that there was no evidence to show as to when the samples had been sent to the laboratory, as the forwarding letter dated 26-2-1998, of the Superintendent of Police (Exts. P-20 and P-21) sent along with the samples did not explain why the samples had reached the laboratory on 9-3-1998 and it was not thus clear where the samples had remained between 26-2-1998 and 9-3-1998. The appeal was, accordingly, allowed and the respondent was acquitted. It is in these circumstances that the present appeal has been preferred by the State.
4. At the very outset, it must be understood that the provisions of Section 50 would no longer be applicable to a search such as the one made in the present case as the opium had been carried on the head in a gunny bag. A Bench of this Court in State of H.P v. Pawan Kumar (2005) 4 SCC 350 after examining the discrepant views rendered in various judgments of this Court has found that Section 50 of the Act would not apply to any search or seizure where the article was not being carried on the person of the accused. Admittedly, in the present case, the opium was being carried on the head in a bag. Mr Abhishek Gupta, the learned counsel for the appellant State, therefore, appears to be right when he contends that the observations of the High Court that the provisions of Section 50 of the Act would not (sic) be applicable was no longer correct in view of the judgment in Pawan Kumar case (2005) 4 SCC 350.
5. We find, however, that the second aspect on which the High Court has opined calls for no interference. As per the prosecution story the samples had been removed from the malkhana on 26-2-1998, and should have been received in the laboratory the very next day. The High Court has, accordingly observed that the prosecution had not been able to show as to in whose possession the samples had remained from 26-2-1998 to 9-3-1998. The High Court has also disbelieved the evidence of PW 6 and PW 9, the former being the Malkhana Incharge and the latter being the constable, who had taken the samples to the laboratory, to the effect that the samples had been taken out on 9-3-1998 and not on 26-2-1998. The Court has also found that in the absence of any reliable evidence with regard to the authenticity of the letter dated 26-2-1998 it had to be found that the samples had remained in some unknown custody from 26-2-1998 to 9-3-1998.
6. We must emphasise that in a prosecution relating to the Act the question as to how and where the samples had been stored or as to when they had been dispatched or received in the laboratory is a matter of great importance on account of the huge penalty involved in these matters. The High Court was, therefore, in our view, fully justified in holding that the sanctity of the samples had been compromised which cast a doubt on the prosecution story. We, accordingly, feel that the judgment of the High Court on the second aspect calls for no interference. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. The respondent is on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged.
Alert