Doniyar Vildanov NDPS Acquittal Supreme Court Judgment: Procedural Lapses Lead to Acquittal

Case Summary

• Case name: Doniyar Vildanov v. The State of U.P., Criminal Appeal (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9460 of 2025), 2026 INSC 95

• Date of Judgment: 30 January 2026

• Bench: Honourable Justice Sanjay Kumar; Honourable Justice K. Vinod Chandran

• Counsel: Shri R.P. Luthra (for the appellant); Learned Government Counsel (name not recorded in the summary)

• Statutes/Provisions: Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 8, 20 and 23; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (reference to 24-hour production rule and procedure for search/seizure)

• Procedural posture: Appeal against Sessions Court conviction and High Court affirmation; appeal allowed by the Supreme Court and accused acquitted

• Key facts in brief: Recovery and seizure of 1.900 kg charas at Indo–Nepal border; accused a Russian national; interception by Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) followed by involvement of local police; allegations of planting, delayed production to Magistrate, and non-compliance with NDPS procedural safeguards

• Cited authorities: None expressly recorded in the provided judgment extract

Introduction

This short analysis examines the Supreme Court’s decision in Doniyar Vildanov v. State of U.P., focusing on evidentiary sufficiency, compliance with NDPS procedural safeguards and cross-border enforcement issues likely to be of particular interest to criminal lawyers, trial judges and prosecutors who handle NDPS matters in India.

Factual matrix and issues

The appellant, a Russian national, was intercepted near the Indo–Nepal border and alleged to have been carrying 1.900 kg of charas. The Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) team first confronted the accused; on detection of contraband in a bag, a police team was called and prosecution began. The accused pleaded that he was arrested earlier in no man’s land, that the contraband was planted when he refused to bribe officers, and that his pet dog was taken away by the police. The core issues before the Court were whether the search and seizure complied with mandatory NDPS safeguards and whether the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in the face of material inconsistencies.

Trial and appellate findings

Both the trial court and the High Court convicted, treating certain discrepancies as minor. On appeal, the Supreme Court scrutinised the sequence of events narrated by prosecuting witnesses (PW1 to PW3), the contemporaneous documents (mahazar, consent letter, site plan Ka.6) and the original passport of the accused. The Court was particularly concerned with the timing of the detection vis-à-vis the formal consent and the absence of safeguards required under the NDPS Act for search and seizure.

Evidentiary analysis: why the Court found doubt

Two strands of evidentiary infirmity guided the Court to acquit. First, the sequence narrated by prosecution witnesses suggested that the bag was searched and contraband detected before the accused was informed of his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate and before a proper consent was recorded. The Court observed: "The mandatory stipulation for search and seizure as per the NDPS Act was not carried out in its true letter and spirit." This remark highlights the elevated standard of procedural regularity demanded in NDPS cases and the Court’s unwillingness to treat procedural non-compliance as merely technical when it affects core aspects of detection and seizure.

Second, the Court emphasised discrepancies between documentary entries (notably passport endorsements) and oral testimony. The passport showed the accused left Nepal on 05.11.2016 while the arrest was recorded at 7 a.m. on 06.11.2016; the passport bore no endorsement of entry into India. The Court noted that even if the accused had been arrested before reaching immigration, it was incumbent on arresting authorities to ensure his entry was recorded — its absence “raises yet another reasonable doubt”. The missing entries, the non-signed consent letter (no police/SSB signatures in mahazar), and unexplained absence of the accused’s dog from the seizure record, collectively cast doubt on the prosecution’s narrative.

On burden and standard of proof

The Court reaffirmed familiar principles: where procedural non-compliance and material inconsistencies exist, the benefit of reasonable doubt must accrue to the accused. It concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt "beyond all reasonable doubt" — the formulation underscores that the standard is not a mere formalism but a substantive safeguard in NDPS prosecutions where consequences are severe.

Practical implications for practitioners and enforcement agencies

1. Stringent compliance with NDPS formalities: Investigating officers and auxiliary forces such as SSB must ensure that searches, seizures, mahazars and consent records are contemporaneous, properly signed by all present, and that translation of material documents is done independently and recorded contemporaneously.

2. Chain of custody and sampling protocols: The judgment reiterates that detection cannot be artificially separated from seizure when contraband is discovered within a bag or on person. Sampling and sealing must follow recognisable protocols to avoid suggestions of planting.

3. Cross-border and immigration records: For cases originating near international borders, precise documentation of entry/exit and immigration endorsements is crucial. Failure to secure immigration entries can create an evidentiary lacuna that undermines the prosecution’s timeline.

4. Role of allied forces: When SSB or other paramilitary units conduct searches, the transition to civil police custody should be precisely documented, and their personnel should be recorded in mahazars to avoid later disputes as to who detected or handled the contraband.

5. Defence tactics: The decision shows the potency of demonstrating procedural breaches and documentary inconsistencies. Defence counsel should assiduously test the chronology and insist on production of original documents such as passports, mahazars and sampling records.

Quotable judicial observations

• "The mandatory stipulation for search and seizure as per the NDPS Act was not carried out in its true letter and spirit."

• "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."

• "The prosecution has failed to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the offence alleged against him."

Conclusion

Honourable Justice K. Vinod Chandran writing for the Bench (with Honourable Justice Sanjay Kumar concurring) set aside convictions imposed by both the trial court and the High Court and ordered immediate release. For prosecutors, the decision is a cautionary tale that in NDPS prosecutions — particularly those at border zones — procedural lapses and documentary discrepancies may be dispositive. For defence counsel, it confirms that meticulous cross-examination of timelines, signatures, and contemporaneous records can successfully generate reasonable doubt. The judgment therefore preserves the balance between rigorous enforcement and the protection of individual liberties where the prosecution’s proof is less than watertight.

From the Court’s reasoning

"The evidence led by the prosecution is of PW1 to 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. 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 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. 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 information of rights; to have the search conducted in the presence of a designated authority.

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.

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."