Heroin found on a bus seat: Himachal HC keeps the conviction but cuts three years to 15 months
Justice Rakesh Kainthla held that Section 50 of the NDPS Act had no role where nothing was taken from the body of the accused, that the driver and conductor were independent enough, and that three years for 28 grams was disproportionate when 250 grams is the commercial line.
A passenger on a night bus from Solan to Shimla fidgeted when two policemen climbed aboard at the Shoghi barrier. When he was asked to stand, two balls wrapped in blue tape lay on his seat. They held 29.17 grams of heroin. The Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld his conviction under the NDPS Act, but has halved his sentence, holding that three years of rigorous imprisonment for a quantity nowhere near the commercial threshold could not survive the principle of proportionality.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla, sitting singly, decided the appeal of Naveen Verma on 26 October 2026. The judgment had been reserved on 6 October. It modifies a judgment of the Special Judge-II, Shimla, dated 3 July 2025, which had convicted Verma under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and sentenced him to three years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹50,000, and six months more in default. The High Court has brought that down to 15 months, a fine of ₹15,000 and three months in default, under Section 21(b).
The naka at 2.10 a.m.
The prosecution case was that Head Constable Lalit, HHC Sunil Kumar, Constables Bhuvnesh Kumar and Rahul, and one Ambilal were at the police barrier at Shoghi on 12 October 2022 at about 2.10 a.m. when an HRTC bus bearing registration HP-64B-7896 came up from Solan. The police stopped it. HC Lalit and Constable Rahul boarded from the front door. The man in seat number two started fidgeting on seeing them, and could not explain why. HC Lalit suspected he had concealed contraband or thrown it around him, called the conductor Kuldeep and driver Susheel Kumar, and asked the man his name. He said he was Naveen Verma.
Verma was asked to stand up. Two balls wrapped in blue tape were on the seat. HC Lalit opened them, found a white substance, checked it and found it to be heroin. It weighed 29.17 grams. The heroin, its plastic packet and the tapes went into a cloth parcel sealed with seven impressions of seal G. A sample seal was taken on cloth, the NCB-1 form was filled, the seal was handed to Kuldeep after use, and Constable Rahul photographed the proceedings. HC Lalit prepared the rukka and sent Rahul with it to the SHO of Police Station West, where the FIR was registered.
From there the parcel passed through the hands the NDPS Act expects. Head Constable Rajan, the investigating officer, reached the spot, took over the case property and the accused, drew the site plan and made the arrest. He produced everything before Inspector Deepak Thakur, the SHO, who resealed the parcel with three seals of his own, filled his columns in the NCB-1 form, took a sample seal and issued a resealing certificate. The parcel went to Head Constable Anil Kumar, the malkhana in-charge, who entered it at serial number 236/22. It then went before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 8, Shimla, who certified the inventory, resealed the parcel with three court seals and attested photographs of the inventory proceedings. Constable Harmesh carried it to the Forensic Science Laboratory at Junga under RC No. 362/22. The laboratory reported that the substance was diacetylmorphine, which is heroin, and the special report reached the Additional Superintendent of Police, Ramesh Sharma, through the usual register.
Nineteen witnesses were examined at trial. Verma, in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, admitted that the police had set up a naka that night and that the bus had come from Solan at 2.10 a.m. He denied the rest. His version was that the police asked all passengers to get off, stopped him as he was getting off, made him sit in the bus, took photographs and built a false case. He led no defence evidence.
What the appeal argued
Mr Rishabh Sharma, appearing as vice counsel for the appellant in place of Mr D.N. Sharma, pressed four points. The prosecution witnesses contradicted each other on material aspects. The conductor had admitted that a personal search of the accused was conducted, yet Section 50 of the NDPS Act, which gives a person about to be searched the right to be taken before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, was not complied with. No passenger was joined as a witness, and the driver was never produced. And the sentence was harsh and disproportionate to the quantity involved.
Mr Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General, replied that the investigating officer had joined the driver and conductor as independent witnesses, that it was not even the defence case that they were not independent, that nothing in cross-examination suggested a motive to lie, and that the witnesses corroborated each other.
Two contradictions, and why they did not matter
The judge went through the testimony of the three recovery witnesses. The conductor, Kuldeep, described the bus being stopped, the passenger in seat two getting perplexed, the two taped balls on the seat, the weighing, the sealing and the form. He added a detail of his own: the accused had taken a ticket from Kalka to Solan but did not get off at Solan, and bought a second ticket to Shimla. He identified both tickets. In cross-examination he said the bus had left Delhi full, that seats two and three were empty when it left Chandigarh with 24 or 25 passengers, that the accused had a fracture in his arm and wore a plaster, that the accused had not tried to run, and that the police had not told him of any right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate.
Constable Rahul and HC Lalit told the same story in chief. Rahul said in cross-examination that the party had left the SIU office at about 9.30 p.m., that CCTV cameras were installed at the barrier and the police post, that no other passenger was checked, and that he left the spot with the rukka at 4.20 a.m. by taking a lift. HC Lalit said they reached Shoghi at about 10 p.m. and checked many vehicles till 2.10 a.m. without preparing any report; that only HHC Sunil Kumar was in uniform; that the police had no prior information; that the photographs do not show the contraband lying on the seat, though the process was videographed; that the bus stayed at the spot till 8 or 8.30 a.m.; and that he had not personally searched the accused.
The defence put two contradictions in the foreground. Kuldeep said the police had checked the other passengers, while Rahul and Lalit said nobody else was searched. Kuldeep said no police official left the spot in his presence, while Rahul said he left with the rukka. Justice Kainthla set these against the Supreme Court's thirteen principles for appreciating ocular evidence in Rajan v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1952, and its judgments in Karan Singh v. State of U.P., (2022) 6 SCC 52, and Anuj Singh v. State of Bihar, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 497, all of which say that discrepancies discard a prosecution case only when they shake its core. The contradiction about searching passengers could occur with the lapse of time, he held. Failing to notice a constable leaving the bus was an error of observation. Neither touched the recovery itself.
Section 50 does not reach a bus seat
On the Section 50 argument the judge was brief. Nothing was recovered from the person of the accused, so the provision had no application. He relied on State of Punjab v. Baljinder Singh, (2019) 10 SCC 473, which holds that where recovery is from a bag, briefcase or similar article, non-compliance with Section 50 is not fatal, and on the line of authority it collects, including Madan Lal v. State of H.P., (2003) 7 SCC 465, on the point that the section applies to a personal search and not to a vehicle, container, bag or premises. He added Kallu Khan v. State of Rajasthan, (2021) 19 SCC 197, where the recovery was from a motorcycle in a public place, Dayalu Kashyap v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2022) 12 SCC 398, where it was from a polythene bag carried on a kanwad, and Ranjan Kumar Chadha v. State of H.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1262, which adheres to the Constitution Bench in Baldev Singh and the larger bench in Pawan Kumar. The requirement of Section 50, he concluded, did not apply.
The argument that the balls might already have been lying on the seat got a short answer too. Verma never protested that they were not his or had been left by another passenger, and he did not hand them to the driver or conductor, which the judge described as the prudent conduct of a person who finds something on his seat that does not belong to him.
The missing driver, the missing passengers, the missing CCTV
The driver, Sushil Kumar, was never examined. The record showed why: on 20 May 2025 the Public Prosecutor made a statement giving him up as repetitive. Justice Kainthla relied on Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2000) 7 SCC 490, which says a prosecutor is at liberty to choose two or some witnesses among many on the same point, on Pohlu v. State of Haryana, (2005) 10 SCC 196, on Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2013) 14 SCC 434, which surveys the law from Abdul Gani onwards and holds that the prosecution may drop witnesses to avoid multiplicity, and on Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P., (2022) 12 SCC 200, which puts the onus on the party alleging deliberate withholding to prove it. The prosecution case could not be doubted because the driver was not called.
Nor could it be doubted because no passenger was cited. The driver and conductor had been joined as independent witnesses and nothing in cross-examination showed otherwise. The judge endorsed the trial court's observation that it is “easier to procure the presence of the public officials” than private persons. The complaint that the barrier's CCTV footage was not seized failed on the facts: the police had video-recorded the proceedings and transferred the recording to a CD exhibited at trial, and since everything happened inside the bus, cameras outside would have shown nothing of use.
As to the police witnesses themselves, the judge followed Kripal Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2019) 5 SCC 646, Karamjit Singh v. State, AIR 2003 SC 3011, Sathyan v. State of Kerala, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 986, and the High Court's own decision in Budh Ram v. State of H.P., 2020 Cri LJ 4254: a police officer's testimony is not to be discarded for the reason that he is a police officer, and if it inspires confidence after scrutiny it can found a conviction. Verma had not alleged enmity with any witness in his Section 313 statement, and no motive was elicited in cross-examination.
Seals that tallied all the way to Junga
The link evidence was traced parcel by parcel. The Magistrate's order recorded the seals intact when the inventory was certified. The laboratory's report recorded receipt of one sealed parcel bearing seven seals of G, three seals of K and three seals of the Civil Nazir, Court Shimla, through Constable Harmesh, all intact and all tallying with the specimen seals sent by the forwarding authority and with the impressions on the NCB-1 form. On Baljit Sharma v. State of H.P., 2007 HLJ 707, Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2008) 8 SCC 557, State of Punjab v. Lakhwinder Singh, (2010) 4 SCC 402, and Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, (2020) 2 SCC 563, an analyst's report showing intact seals is proof that the property was not tampered with, and the trial court had rightly so held.
The objection that the seal itself was not produced in court was met with Varinder Kumar v. State of H.P., 2019 (3) SCALE 50, which calls a trial court's insistence on the physical seal perverse where specimen impressions are on record. Here the sample seals of G, of K and of the court were all exhibited, G and K were also impressed on the NCB-1 form, and the trial court had itself noted, while recording Kuldeep's evidence, that the parcel before it carried three seals of K, seven of G, three of the FSL and three of JMFC 8 Shimla, all intact. The laboratory found 28.330 grams of heroin excluding the plastic. The finding of possession stood.
Why three years was too many
The sentence was the one point on which the appellant succeeded. The Central Government has notified 250 grams of heroin as the commercial quantity, which is the point at which a ten-year term becomes available. Verma had 28.330 grams on the laboratory's figure. Justice Kainthla drew on Uggarsain v. State of Haryana, (2023) 8 SCC 109, where the Supreme Court gathered its sentencing decisions from B.G. Goswami and Sham Sunder v. Puran to Jameel v. State of U.P. and Guru Basavaraj, all insisting that punishment be proportionate to the gravity of the offence, stern where it should be and tempered where it warrants. Applied here, he held, “the sentence of 3 years is excessive and requires interference”.
Order
The appeal was partly allowed. The conviction under the NDPS Act stands, with the offence recorded as one punishable under Section 21(b). The sentence is modified to rigorous imprisonment for 15 months and a fine of ₹15,000, with rigorous imprisonment for three months in default of payment. Verma is entitled to set-off for the period already spent in custody during the trial and the appeal. Subject to that modification, the rest of the trial court's judgment and order is upheld. A modified warrant is to be prepared, and a copy of the judgment with the trial court record is to be sent back forthwith. Pending applications stand disposed of.