Full Judgment Text
2026 INSC 95
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No. of 2026
[@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9460 of 2025]
Doniyar Vildanov
...Appellant
Versus
The State of U.P.
...Respondent
J U D G M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. A search conducted on the Indo-Nepal Boarder led to
recovery and seizure of 1.900 kg of charas from a Russian
national, who was arrested and later put on trial. The
Sessions Court convicted and sentenced the accused to ten
years rigorous imprisonment for the offences punishable
under Sections 8, 20 and 23 of the Narcotic Drugs and
1
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and a fine of Rs.1 lakh
with a default sentence of six months. The prosecution
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Deepak Guglani
Date: 2026.01.30
11:09:38 IST
Reason:
1
For brevity, ‘the NDPS Act’
Page 1 of 9
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 9460 of 2025
alleged that after entering the territory of India, 15 meters
from the Border Pillar No.517/2 (Sub Pillar), the appellant
herein was accosted and searched by a team of Sashastra
Seema Bal (SSB). On detection of the contraband in his bag,
a police team which was also engaged, along with the SSB
team, in the combing operation at the border was
summoned after which the recovery was made and the
criminal law put into motion.
3. The accused on the other hand claimed that he was
taken into custody on the previous day at the no man’s land
and on his refusal to bribe the police, a false case was
registered against him and his pet dog, accompanying him,
was also taken away by the police team. The High Court on
an appeal affirmed the conviction and sentence handed
down by the Trial Court against which the present appeal is
filed.
4. We heard Sh. R.P. Luthra, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant. The original passport of the appellant,
which was part of the Trial Court’s record, indicates the
appellant having left Nepal on 05.11.2016, while his arrest
Page 2 of 9
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 9460 of 2025
was recorded at 7.00 A.M. on 06.11.2016. It is the contention
of the learned counsel that he was produced before the
learned Magistrate after 24 hours period as stipulated in the
2
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ; to facilitate which the
arrest was recorded later. It is argued that the contraband
was planted and it was never recovered from the body of
the accused nor from his possession.
5. Learned Government Counsel vehemently supported
the prosecution case and contended that after exit from
Nepal, the accused remained in the no man’s land till he
entered the territory of India on the next day morning.
Immediately after which he was arrested on detection of the
contraband in his bag. There is no possibility of any plant
since the total value of the contraband would be almost
Twenty-three lakhs.
6. Both the Trial Court and the High Court had noted
discrepancies in the evidence led by the prosecution but
entered and upheld the conviction finding those to be
minor. The evidence led by the prosecution is of PW1 to
2
For brevity, ‘the Cr.P.C.’
Page 3 of 9
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 9460 of 2025
PW5. As we see from the deposition, the SSB team which
carried out the combing operation was led by PW3, a Sub
Inspector with the SSB while the police team was led by
PW1, also a Sub Inspector attached to the Sonauli Police
Station. PW2 was one of the Constables with the SSB who was
in the team of PW3. PW4 was the I.O and PW5 was a Head
Clerk attached to the Police Station, Sonauli at the time of the
registration of the FIR.
7. A reading of the evidence of PW1 to PW3 indicates that
it was the SSB team led by PW3, who first confronted the
accused and after having detected the contraband in his
bag called PW1 and his team, pursuant to which the search
was conducted. It is also asserted by PW1 to PW3 that before
the search was conducted, they had searched all the
members of the team to ensure that no contraband was kept
in their possession. It is also deposed that the accused was
informed of his rights to be searched before a Gazetted
Officer or a Magistrate, upon which he confessed to have
purchased the contraband from Nepal with the intention of
selling it in India and agreed to the search without the
Page 4 of 9
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 9460 of 2025
presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. It is also
stated that a consent letter was written by PW1, which was
translated into English upon which the accused signed the
documents. The translation is said to have been done by
PW3, the Sub Inspector leading the SSB team who, at the first
instance detected the contraband.
8. From the sequence of events as spoken of by PW1 to
PW3, the SSB team led by PW3 which also included PW2
intercepted the accused, detected the contraband and then
summoned PW1 and his team. It was after PW1 came to the
spot, he was informed of his rights to have a search
conducted in the presence of Gazetted Officer or a
Magistrate, which is said to have been declined along with
a confession of the possession of charas intended for sale.
The consent letter is said to have been written in Hindi and
later translated into English by PW3, after the detection of
the contraband itself. After the consent letter was allegedly
signed by the accused only the sampling was done; the
detection of the contraband being even prior to the
Page 5 of 9
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 9460 of 2025
information of rights; to have the search conducted in the
presence of a designated authority.
9. The sequence of events as spoken of by PW1 to PW3
clearly indicate that immediately on interception the bag of
the accused was searched and the contraband detected.
The consent letter was signed after the detection was made
and then the confession was alleged to have been made.
The attempt is to say that the detection was separate from
actual seizure. However the contraband being inside the
bag of the accused there was no possibility of detection
without a search having been carried out. Obviously, the
mandatory stipulation for search and seizure as per the
NDPS Act was not carried out in its true letter and spirit.
10. Further, it is to be observed that the original passport
which was produced before us clearly indicates the accused
having left Nepal on 05.11.2016. The site plan which was
marked as Ka.6, as available from the records, indicate that
the interception of the accused was after he entered into the
territory of India. However, there is no such entry indicated
in the passport. Even if the accused was arrested before he
Page 6 of 9
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 9460 of 2025
reached the Immigration Counter, it was the bounden duty
of the police who took him into custody to get his entry
marked in the passport at the Immigration Counter. 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, insofar as his interception at 7
A.M. on 06.11.2016.
11. It is also pertinent that the consent letter as available
in the records indicate it to have been written in English and
signed only by the accused. Interestingly, the evidence of
PW1 as available in the records indicate that the consent
letter was confronted to the accused who recognized his
signature. The clear deposition of PW1 was that he informed
the accused about his rights in Hindi, which was translated
into English by PW3. 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.
12. Yet again, PW1 has admitted that the accused had a
pet dog accompanying him, the whereabouts of which is
neither disclosed nor is the presence of the dog entered in
Page 7 of 9
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 9460 of 2025
the Mahazar. This probablises the story of the accused in his
Section 313 questioning that the police had an eye on his
dog, which he refused to part with, thus leading to the false
accusation.
13. We cannot but notice that even the recovery Mahazar
does not indicate a bag in which the contraband is said to
have been smuggled into India. We cannot but notice that
the inconsistencies in the evidence of PW1 to PW3 are not
minor and are glaring enough to raise a reasonable doubt
as to the complicity of the accused in the alleged smuggling
of the contraband into India. We are unable to find the
search and seizure to be in accordance with the mandatory
prescriptions and hence the foundation of the case charged
against the appellant falls apart.
14. In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that
the prosecution has failed to establish beyond all
reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the offence
alleged against him, of bringing in charas from Nepal to
India. The judgment of the Trial Court and that of the High
Court affirming it are set aside. The accused shall be
Page 8 of 9
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 9460 of 2025
released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. The
Original Passport of the accused available in the records
shall be returned to the learned counsel for the appellant,
by the Registry with due acknowledgment taken.
15. The Criminal Appeal is allowed and the accused
stands acquitted.
16. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
……...…….……………………. J.
(SANJAY KUMAR)
...………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI
JANUARY 30, 2026.
Page 9 of 9
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 9460 of 2025
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No. of 2026
[@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9460 of 2025]
Doniyar Vildanov
...Appellant
Versus
The State of U.P.
...Respondent
J U D G M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. A search conducted on the Indo-Nepal Boarder led to
recovery and seizure of 1.900 kg of charas from a Russian
national, who was arrested and later put on trial. The
Sessions Court convicted and sentenced the accused to ten
years rigorous imprisonment for the offences punishable
under Sections 8, 20 and 23 of the Narcotic Drugs and
1
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and a fine of Rs.1 lakh
with a default sentence of six months. The prosecution
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Deepak Guglani
Date: 2026.01.30
11:09:38 IST
Reason:
1
For brevity, ‘the NDPS Act’
Page 1 of 9
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 9460 of 2025
alleged that after entering the territory of India, 15 meters
from the Border Pillar No.517/2 (Sub Pillar), the appellant
herein was accosted and searched by a team of Sashastra
Seema Bal (SSB). On detection of the contraband in his bag,
a police team which was also engaged, along with the SSB
team, in the combing operation at the border was
summoned after which the recovery was made and the
criminal law put into motion.
3. The accused on the other hand claimed that he was
taken into custody on the previous day at the no man’s land
and on his refusal to bribe the police, a false case was
registered against him and his pet dog, accompanying him,
was also taken away by the police team. The High Court on
an appeal affirmed the conviction and sentence handed
down by the Trial Court against which the present appeal is
filed.
4. We heard Sh. R.P. Luthra, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant. The original passport of the appellant,
which was part of the Trial Court’s record, indicates the
appellant having left Nepal on 05.11.2016, while his arrest
Page 2 of 9
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 9460 of 2025
was recorded at 7.00 A.M. on 06.11.2016. It is the contention
of the learned counsel that he was produced before the
learned Magistrate after 24 hours period as stipulated in the
2
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ; to facilitate which the
arrest was recorded later. It is argued that the contraband
was planted and it was never recovered from the body of
the accused nor from his possession.
5. Learned Government Counsel vehemently supported
the prosecution case and contended that after exit from
Nepal, the accused remained in the no man’s land till he
entered the territory of India on the next day morning.
Immediately after which he was arrested on detection of the
contraband in his bag. There is no possibility of any plant
since the total value of the contraband would be almost
Twenty-three lakhs.
6. Both the Trial Court and the High Court had noted
discrepancies in the evidence led by the prosecution but
entered and upheld the conviction finding those to be
minor. The evidence led by the prosecution is of PW1 to
2
For brevity, ‘the Cr.P.C.’
Page 3 of 9
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 9460 of 2025
PW5. As we see from the deposition, the SSB team which
carried out the combing operation was led by PW3, a Sub
Inspector with the SSB while the police team was led by
PW1, also a Sub Inspector attached to the Sonauli Police
Station. PW2 was one of the Constables with the SSB who was
in the team of PW3. PW4 was the I.O and PW5 was a Head
Clerk attached to the Police Station, Sonauli at the time of the
registration of the FIR.
7. A reading of the evidence of PW1 to PW3 indicates that
it was the SSB team led by PW3, who first confronted the
accused and after having detected the contraband in his
bag called PW1 and his team, pursuant to which the search
was conducted. It is also asserted by PW1 to PW3 that before
the search was conducted, they had searched all the
members of the team to ensure that no contraband was kept
in their possession. It is also deposed that the accused was
informed of his rights to be searched before a Gazetted
Officer or a Magistrate, upon which he confessed to have
purchased the contraband from Nepal with the intention of
selling it in India and agreed to the search without the
Page 4 of 9
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 9460 of 2025
presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. It is also
stated that a consent letter was written by PW1, which was
translated into English upon which the accused signed the
documents. The translation is said to have been done by
PW3, the Sub Inspector leading the SSB team who, at the first
instance detected the contraband.
8. From the sequence of events as spoken of by PW1 to
PW3, the SSB team led by PW3 which also included PW2
intercepted the accused, detected the contraband and then
summoned PW1 and his team. It was after PW1 came to the
spot, he was informed of his rights to have a search
conducted in the presence of Gazetted Officer or a
Magistrate, which is said to have been declined along with
a confession of the possession of charas intended for sale.
The consent letter is said to have been written in Hindi and
later translated into English by PW3, after the detection of
the contraband itself. After the consent letter was allegedly
signed by the accused only the sampling was done; the
detection of the contraband being even prior to the
Page 5 of 9
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 9460 of 2025
information of rights; to have the search conducted in the
presence of a designated authority.
9. The sequence of events as spoken of by PW1 to PW3
clearly indicate that immediately on interception the bag of
the accused was searched and the contraband detected.
The consent letter was signed after the detection was made
and then the confession was alleged to have been made.
The attempt is to say that the detection was separate from
actual seizure. However the contraband being inside the
bag of the accused there was no possibility of detection
without a search having been carried out. Obviously, the
mandatory stipulation for search and seizure as per the
NDPS Act was not carried out in its true letter and spirit.
10. Further, it is to be observed that the original passport
which was produced before us clearly indicates the accused
having left Nepal on 05.11.2016. The site plan which was
marked as Ka.6, as available from the records, indicate that
the interception of the accused was after he entered into the
territory of India. However, there is no such entry indicated
in the passport. Even if the accused was arrested before he
Page 6 of 9
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 9460 of 2025
reached the Immigration Counter, it was the bounden duty
of the police who took him into custody to get his entry
marked in the passport at the Immigration Counter. 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, insofar as his interception at 7
A.M. on 06.11.2016.
11. It is also pertinent that the consent letter as available
in the records indicate it to have been written in English and
signed only by the accused. Interestingly, the evidence of
PW1 as available in the records indicate that the consent
letter was confronted to the accused who recognized his
signature. The clear deposition of PW1 was that he informed
the accused about his rights in Hindi, which was translated
into English by PW3. 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.
12. Yet again, PW1 has admitted that the accused had a
pet dog accompanying him, the whereabouts of which is
neither disclosed nor is the presence of the dog entered in
Page 7 of 9
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 9460 of 2025
the Mahazar. This probablises the story of the accused in his
Section 313 questioning that the police had an eye on his
dog, which he refused to part with, thus leading to the false
accusation.
13. We cannot but notice that even the recovery Mahazar
does not indicate a bag in which the contraband is said to
have been smuggled into India. We cannot but notice that
the inconsistencies in the evidence of PW1 to PW3 are not
minor and are glaring enough to raise a reasonable doubt
as to the complicity of the accused in the alleged smuggling
of the contraband into India. We are unable to find the
search and seizure to be in accordance with the mandatory
prescriptions and hence the foundation of the case charged
against the appellant falls apart.
14. In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that
the prosecution has failed to establish beyond all
reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the offence
alleged against him, of bringing in charas from Nepal to
India. The judgment of the Trial Court and that of the High
Court affirming it are set aside. The accused shall be
Page 8 of 9
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 9460 of 2025
released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. The
Original Passport of the accused available in the records
shall be returned to the learned counsel for the appellant,
by the Registry with due acknowledgment taken.
15. The Criminal Appeal is allowed and the accused
stands acquitted.
16. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
……...…….……………………. J.
(SANJAY KUMAR)
...………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI
JANUARY 30, 2026.
Page 9 of 9
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 9460 of 2025