-
by Admin
17 December 2025 12:49 PM
In a Latest Judgement, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana delivered a landmark ruling in Jagjit Singh @ Kala v. State of Haryana (CRA-D-862-DB-2005). The court acquitted the appellant, Jagjit Singh, previously convicted under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act for possessing a large quantity of poppy husk. The judgment was significant as it emphasized the mandatory nature of compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act, leading to the appellant's acquittal on the grounds of procedural lapses by the prosecution.
On October 16, 2003, ASI Jagdish Rai of CIA Staff Sirsa received secret information about a truck carrying poppy husk. The truck was intercepted and driven by the appellant, Jagjit Singh. The police found 170 bags of poppy husk in the truck, and two samples were taken from each bag. The appellant was charged under Section 15 of the NDPS Act. The trial court convicted Jagjit Singh on August 19, 2005, sentencing him to 15 years of rigorous imprisonment and imposing a fine of ₹100,000. In default of the fine payment, he was to undergo an additional 5 years of imprisonment.
The appeal primarily hinged on the compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act, which mandates that an officer must obtain a search warrant or authorization before conducting a search, especially during night hours, unless there are recorded reasons for not doing so. The appellant's counsel argued that the investigating officer did not comply with this statutory requirement. The State contended that the presence of a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) during the search was sufficient compliance with the Act.
Justice Sureshwar Thakur, writing for the division bench, examined whether the search and seizure were conducted lawfully. The court observed:
"The search as made of the offending vehicle even if it was made in the presence of a Gazetted Officer is a statutorily vitiated search" (para 21).
The court meticulously analyzed the procedures followed by the prosecution and found several deficiencies:
Non-Compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act: The court held that Section 42's requirement for a search warrant or authorization is mandatory. The investigating officer failed to record reasons for not obtaining a warrant, which is a crucial safeguard under the Act to prevent abuse of power.
Improper Handling of Seized Contraband: The court noted that the seized contraband's chain of custody was not properly maintained. The prosecution failed to produce the examined sealed cloth parcels in court for inspection, which is critical for ensuring the integrity of evidence.
Forensic Examination: The court expressed skepticism over the handling of the samples sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). The prosecution did not produce the FSL report author, nor was the defense given an opportunity to cross-examine the expert, raising doubts about the authenticity of the incriminating evidence.
Failure to Summon the Expert: The court underscored that the defense should have been allowed to cross-examine the expert who prepared the FSL report. The court stated:
"The import of the provisions (supra) thus is to forward the mandate of fair trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India therebys the summoning of the accused is imperative for his being not only examined-in-chief rather for proving the incriminatory report as become drawn by the expert concerned but also for his being subsequently cross-examined" (para 19).
The procedural lapses, especially the violation of Section 42, the court found the search and seizure to be statutorily vitiated. It emphasized that strict compliance with procedural safeguards the NDPS Act is crucial. Consequently, the court quashed the conviction and sentence, ordering the acquittal of Jagjit Singh. The court directed that any fine paid by the appellant be refunded and ordered his immediate release if he was not required in any other case.
Date of Decision: September 9, 2024
Jagjit Singh @ Kala v. State of Haryana
