In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court at Goa has overturned the conviction of a Kenyan national booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, holding that police officers failed to follow mandatory legal safeguards during the search operation.
The court ruled that the lapse went to the root of the case and rendered the recovery of drugs legally invalid.
Read also:- Adopted Child’s Caste Same as Adoptive Parents, Biological Origin Irrelevant: Bombay High Court
Background of the Case
The case dates back to January 29, 2019, when police in Canacona claimed to have received secret information that a foreign national would deliver narcotic drugs near Komarpant Samaj Hall, Colomb.
A raiding team was formed and the accused, Joseph Achola Ouma, was intercepted around 4:35 pm. Police alleged that they recovered:
- 3.10 grams of cocaine, and
- 7.53 grams of LSD
from his pant pocket.
Following the seizure, he was charged under Sections 21(b) and 22(c) of the NDPS Act. In November 2024, a trial court convicted him and sentenced him to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment, along with fines.
The accused challenged the verdict before the High Court.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Rejects Lapse Claim in 1960s Land Acquisition, Says Compensation Was Properly Deposited
Key Issue Before the Court
The main question before the High Court was:
Did the police comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 50 of the NDPS Act before conducting the personal search?
Section 50 gives a suspect the legal right to be searched in the presence of either a Magistrate or an independent Gazetted Officer.
What the Court Found
After examining witness testimonies and documents, the High Court found serious procedural lapses.
1. No Proper Choice Was Given
The court observed that the accused was only told about the presence of a Gazetted Officer who was already part of the raiding team.
He was never informed that:
- He had a legal right to be searched before a Magistrate, or
- He could choose an independent Gazetted Officer not connected with the raid.
2. Presence of Gazetted Officer Was Misleading
The bench noted that merely informing the accused that a Gazetted Officer was already present does not fulfil Section 50.
“The accused was never given a real choice. He was only told that a Gazetted Officer was present, which defeats the very purpose of the safeguard,” the court observed.
3. Consistent Failure Across Witnesses
Even police witnesses admitted during cross-examination that:
- Only one option was offered
- No mention of a Magistrate was made
- The Gazetted Officer was part of the raiding team
This, the court said, was a clear violation of mandatory law.
Read also:- Supreme Court Restores ₹27 Crore Damages in Solar Power Delay Case, Limits Courts’ Power to Rework Awards
Court’s Observation
The judgment strongly reiterated the importance of Section 50, stating:
“The safeguard under Section 50 is not a formality. It exists to prevent false implication and ensure fairness in serious NDPS cases.”
The court also relied on multiple Supreme Court rulings which hold that:
- Partial compliance is not enough
- Offering a third option (search before a raiding officer) is illegal
- Any recovery made in violation of Section 50 becomes unreliable
Read also:- Kerala High Court Tightens Oversight on Travancore Devaswom Digitisation After Nilakkal Petrol Pump
Final Decision
Allowing the appeal, the High Court held:
- The search was conducted in violation of Section 50
- The recovery of drugs became legally doubtful
- The conviction could not be sustained
Result:
- Conviction set aside
- Sentence quashed
- Accused acquitted
The court ordered the immediate release of the accused if not required in any other case.
Case Title: Joseph Achola Ouma vs State of Goa
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1069 of 2024
Decision Date: 19 January 2026
