Two witnesses said they signed blank papers. The Supreme Court freed the accused.

Two independent witnesses walked into court and said: 'We never saw any drugs. The police made us sign blank papers.' The Supreme Court had to decide whether a man could go to prison for 10 years when the very people the police called to watch the search swore it never happened.

The case hung on a single question: what happens to a conviction when the witnesses the police themselves summoned to ensure fairness say the whole thing was a fabrication?

The tip-off that looked solid on paper

31 May 2014. A police officer at Chakrabhata Police Station in Chhattisgarh received information. Two persons — Sanjeet Kumar Singh and Reena Das — were allegedly carrying ganja in the boot of a Hyundai Verna, travelling from Raipur to Pendra Road.

The officer recorded the information. He prepared documents. He summoned two local councillors as independent witnesses — the kind meant to guarantee that whatever happened next would be transparent.

The car was stopped. A notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act (the law that requires police to tell a person being searched that they can demand a search before a magistrate or a gazetted officer) was served on Sanjeet. The search reportedly found 47.370 kg of ganja in three bags in the boot. The Forensic Science Laboratory confirmed it was ganja. Both accused were charge-sheeted.

On paper, it looked like a solid case.

But the case would not be decided on paper.

What the independent witnesses told the court

At trial, the prosecution called its two independent witnesses — the local councillors who were supposed to have watched the entire search and seizure.

Their testimony did not go as planned.

Both witnesses denied being present during any search or seizure. They said they had come to the police station that day for an unrelated Sindhi community dispute. While they were there, the police took their signatures on blank documents. They had no idea what those documents would later say.

This was not a case of witnesses simply turning hostile — refusing to support the prosecution — which happens routinely in criminal trials. These witnesses gave a specific, plausible explanation for how their signatures ended up on the panchnamas (official search-and-seizure documents). They were never at the scene. They never saw any drugs. The entire search and seizure, as recorded by the police, was something they knew nothing about.

The trial court convicted anyway

The Special Court (the trial court for NDPS cases) convicted Sanjeet Kumar Singh under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act (the provision that punishes possession of commercial quantities of cannabis products) and sentenced him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1 lakh.

But the same court acquitted Reena Das — the co-accused who was in the same car, allegedly transporting the same ganja. Why? Because her name was missing from key documents, and no Section 50 notice was served on her. The State did not appeal her acquittal.

Sanjeet appealed to the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. The High Court confirmed his conviction.

He then approached the Supreme Court.

The prosecution's argument: presumption can fill the gap

The prosecution's case rested primarily on the testimony of PW-7 — the DSP/SHO who was both the informant who received the tip-off and the investigating officer who conducted the search.

The two independent witnesses had demolished the prosecution's version of the search and seizure.

The prosecution argued that Section 54 of the NDPS Act (a legal presumption that a person found in possession of illicit drugs is presumed to have possessed them knowingly) shifted the burden to the accused. Once the recovery was shown on paper, the accused had to explain it.

The defence said the presumption could not even be triggered. If the search and seizure itself was in doubt — if the independent witnesses said they were never there — then the foundational fact of recovery had not been proved. A presumption cannot stand on air.

What the Supreme Court said

A bench of Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice Indira Banerjee allowed the appeal on 30 August 2022.

The court held: where independent witnesses not only deny participation in the search and seizure but provide a credible alternative explanation for their signatures, the prosecution case on the foundational aspect of search and seizure collapses.

The court clarified the relationship between the search and the presumption. The presumption under Section 54 can only be invoked after the prosecution first establishes that a recovery was in fact made from the accused. A doubt on the search and seizure itself prevents the presumption from being triggered at all.

The court also found it significant that the co-accused, Reena Das, had been acquitted on identical evidence — and the State had not appealed. Where the prosecution case against co-accused persons rests on the same evidence, and one is acquitted because the investigating officer failed to follow procedure, the surviving accused is entitled to the same benefit of doubt. The credibility of the investigating officer's testimony as a whole was undermined.

Why this case matters for every criminal lawyer

This judgment reinforces a principle that is often forgotten in the rush to convict in drug cases: the prosecution must prove the recovery before it can rely on any presumption. Independent witnesses are not decorative — they are the foundation of a fair search. When they say they were never there, the entire edifice crumbles.

THE PLAY: If your client's case involves a disputed search and seizure, and the independent witnesses have turned hostile with a plausible explanation, move to shut down the case at the threshold — the presumption under Section 54 cannot rescue a recovery that never happened.

The Supreme Court ordered Sanjeet Kumar Singh released forthwith, unless he was in custody in connection with some other case. Two witnesses who walked into a police station for a community dispute had, without intending to, walked out with a man's freedom in their hands.