The Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the conviction of two individuals previously sentenced to six months’ rigorous imprisonment and fined for alleged possession of 10 grams of smack under Section 21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The trial court had found them guilty based on police recovery during a personal search.

The appellants challenged the conviction, alleging non-compliance with mandatory provisions of Sections 50 and 52A of the NDPS Act. They argued that their searches were not conducted before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer and that the process of sampling the contraband lacked judicial supervision. The defence also pointed to delays in sending samples for forensic analysis and absence of independent witnesses.

The High Court observed that the requirements of Section 50 NDPS Act are mandatory and cannot be replaced by a written consent to be searched by a police officer. It also held that samples of seized contraband must be drawn under the supervision of a Magistrate as per Section 52A. The Court found procedural lapses, including unexplained delay of several days in sending samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory and the lack of independent corroboration.

Relying on precedents such as Arif Khan v. State of Uttarakhand, Union of India v. Mohan Lal, and Simranjit Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It ruled that violations of statutory safeguards rendered the recovery and seizure unreliable.The High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted both appellants of all charges. Their bail and surety bonds were discharged.