In a significant clarification of the law under the NDPS Act, the Supreme Court has held that an in-charge Station House Officer is competent to carry out searches.
🚨 Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Search by In-Charge SHO in NDPS Cases
Legal Desk, New Delhi, 10-May:In a pivotal judgment that will influence narcotics investigations across the country, the Supreme Court has ruled that an in-charge Station House Officer (SHO) is legally authorized to conduct searches under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) in the absence of the official SHO. The apex court set aside the Rajasthan High Court’s decision, which had quashed an FIR registered under Sections 8/18, 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act.
A Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice SVN Bhatti delivered the verdict while hearing a challenge against the Rajasthan High Court’s order that questioned the competence of the in-charge SHO in initiating search and seizure proceedings under the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act.
“The term 'Station House Officer' as used in Section 42 of the NDPS Act includes not only the designated officer but also the one who is legally in charge of the police station at the relevant time,” observed the Court.
🔍 What Triggered the Controversy?
The case stemmed from a First Information Report (FIR) filed in Rajasthan for offences involving opium possession and trafficking. The accused argued that the search was invalid because it was conducted by an officer who was merely acting as in-charge SHO and not the formally posted Station House Officer.
The Rajasthan High Court accepted this plea, holding the search illegal and quashing the FIR, citing non-compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act, which mandates searches be conducted by an “empowered officer.”
However, the Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing a broader interpretation of the term “SHO” to avoid unjust technicalities interfering with criminal justice.
📚 Legal Background & Precedent
Section 42 of the NDPS Act deals with the power of entry, search, seizure, and arrest without warrant or authorization. It specifies that only certain officers can conduct such operations.
The apex court cited its earlier ruling in Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana (2009), where it upheld the view that procedural compliance under the NDPS Act must be balanced against effective law enforcement and should not obstruct investigations unless there is demonstrable prejudice.
Referring to the Police Act and internal police regulations, the bench clarified that once an officer is designated as in-charge of a station, they assume all powers and responsibilities of the SHO — a principle consistently upheld in service and criminal law jurisprudence.
“Legal empowerment stems from the authority to function as head of the police station, not merely the official appointment designation,” the bench added.
⚖️ Implications of the Ruling
This ruling holds major implications for drug enforcement operations across India. It eliminates ambiguity around the powers of acting SHOs and reaffirms the legal validity of searches conducted in their capacity.
The Court also reminded that procedural safeguards must be followed to uphold individual rights under the NDPS Act, but technical objections must not derail legitimate investigations, especially in serious offences involving narcotics.
Readers can explore more updates from the judiciary on our National News section or visit The Legal Observer homepage for the latest legal developments.
For in-depth views, check our Insight and Debate categories.
📺 Watch legal analysis videos on our official YouTube channel.
In House Development | The Legal Observer
