The Supreme Court acquitted Appellant, a Russian national, who was convicted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for possession of 1.900 kg of charas. The Court found multiple procedural violations in the search and seizure process, including that the contraband was detected before the accused was informed of his rights under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The consent letter was signed after detection, and discrepancies in passport entries and arrest timing created reasonable doubt. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove compliance with mandatory procedures, and the conviction could not be sustained.
The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 -- The Court found that the mandatory search and seizure procedures under the NDPS Act were not followed in their true letter and spirit -- The sequence of events indicated that the contraband was detected before the accused was informed of his rights to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate -- The consent letter was signed after detection of contraband, which violated the statutory procedure -- The passport evidence showed the accused left Nepal on 05.11.2016 but there was no endorsement of entry into India on 06.11.2016, creating doubt about the arrest timing -- The consent letter did not contain signatures of SSB or police personnel present at the spot -- The presence of the accused's pet dog was not recorded in the Mahazar, supporting the defense version -- The prosecution failed to prove compliance with procedural safeguards beyond reasonable doubt
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant of all charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Citation: 2026 LawText (SC) (01) 84
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 [@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9460 of 2025]
Date of Decision: 2026-01-30
Case Title: The Issue of Consideration was whether the conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was sustainable given procedural violations and evidentiary discrepancies
Before Judge: SANJAY KUMAR J. , K. VINOD CHANDRAN J.
Equivalent Citations: 2026 INSC 95
Advocate(s): Sh. R.P. Luthra
Appellant: Doniyar Vildanov
Respondent: The State of U.P.
Nature of Litigation: Criminal appeal against conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Remedy Sought: The appellant sought acquittal and setting aside of the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court
Filing Reason: The appellant challenged the conviction on grounds of procedural violations in search and seizure, discrepancies in evidence, and doubtful arrest timing
Previous Decisions: The Sessions Court convicted and sentenced the appellant to ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine -- The High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence
Issues: Whether the search and seizure procedures under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 were properly followed Whether the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt despite discrepancies in evidence
Submissions/Arguments: The appellant contended that the contraband was planted and never recovered from his possession -- The arrest was recorded later to facilitate production before the Magistrate after 24 hours -- The mandatory search procedures under Section 50 of the NDPS Act were not followed The respondent contended that the accused was arrested immediately after entering Indian territory -- The contraband was detected in his bag -- There was no possibility of planting given the high value of contraband
Ratio Decidendi: The mandatory search and seizure procedures under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 must be strictly complied with -- Any deviation from these procedures creates reasonable doubt about the recovery of contraband -- The prosecution must prove compliance with procedural safeguards beyond reasonable doubt -- Discrepancies in evidence regarding arrest timing and documentation can vitiate the conviction
Judgment Excerpts: The mandatory stipulation for search and seizure as per the NDPS Act was not carried out in its true letter and spirit -- Para 9 The fact of his exit from Nepal on 05.11.2016 and the absence of an endorsement of his entry into Indian territory raises yet another reasonable doubt -- Para 10 The consent letter also does not indicate the signature of any of the personnel of the SSB or the police who were at the spot -- Para 11
Procedural History: Search conducted at Indo-Nepal Border leading to recovery of contraband -- Sessions Court convicted and sentenced the appellant -- High Court affirmed the conviction -- Supreme Court granted leave and heard the appeal
