DB upholds acquittal in 680-gram heroin case, cites violation of NDPS safeguards

04/06/2026

JAMMU, Jun 3: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the acquittal of a Ramban resident in a case involving the alleged recovery of 680 grams of heroin, holding that the prosecution failed to comply with mandatory safeguards under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
A Division Bench of Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem dismissed an appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of Mohd Irfan by a Jammu trial court in 2012 in a case registered by Police Station Gangyal under Section 21 of the NDPS Act.
According to the prosecution, Irfan was intercepted during a naka checking operation near City Farm, Greater Kailash, Jammu, on March 8, 2010, and a packet allegedly containing 680 grams of heroin was recovered from his armpit during a personal search.
The trial court had acquitted the accused on the ground that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act had not been complied with and that there were major contradictions in the prosecution evidence. The State challenged the acquittal before the High Court.
After examining the record, the Division Bench held that the prosecution had failed to establish compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, which requires that a person subjected to a personal search must be informed of his legal right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate.
The court observed that the evidence on record neither suggested nor proved that the accused had been apprised of this statutory right. It noted that the search was conducted by a non-gazetted police officer and that there was complete non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 50.
Referring to the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in VijaySinh Chandubha Jadeja vs State of Gujarat, the High Court reiterated that strict compliance with Section 50 is mandatory in cases involving personal search and recovery.
The Bench also pointed to significant contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses regarding who conducted the search, the colour of the envelope containing the contraband, the place where the substance was weighed and the type of weighing scale used. Such inconsistencies, the court said, rendered the prosecution version doubtful.
Holding that the recovery itself stood vitiated due to non-compliance with mandatory legal safeguards, the court said the alleged contraband could not be relied upon as evidence and the prosecution case consequently collapsed.
Finding no reason to interfere with the trial court's judgment, the Division Bench dismissed the State's appeal and affirmed the acquittal of the accused.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty