In Cases of Stringent Punishment, Proof Must be Stricter: Punjab and Haryana HC Quashes NDPS Conviction Citing Doubts in Recovery and Evidence Handling

In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court acquitted two individuals, Balwinder Singh and Bhola Singh, of charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act). The bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurbir Singh set aside the earlier conviction by the Special Court, Bathinda, observing major discrepancies in the prosecution's case.

Legal Point: The crux of the case revolved around the alleged possession and transportation of Methamphetamine and Codeine. The prosecution's narrative of recovery and the involvement of an independent witness were central to the appeal.

Facts and Issues: The prosecution claimed that on September 2, 2012, a police patrol in village Jajjal intercepted the appellants carrying a bag containing contraband substances. Following a trial, they were convicted under Sections 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act. However, the defense argued that the recovery process was flawed, and the prosecution’s witness, initially associated with the police, refuted the recovery claim.

Independent Witness Testimony: The court noted that the independent witness, Jagna Singh, denied any involvement in the alleged recovery process. This raised serious doubts about the prosecution's version.

Discrepancies in Recovery Process: The bench questioned the plausibility of two persons jointly carrying a bag of minor weight, as claimed by the prosecution.

Defective Offer under Section 50 NDPS Act: The appellants argued that the joint offer for search under Section 50 was defective. The court acknowledged this but highlighted that the case's focus was on the recovery from a bag, not personal search.

Delay in Chemical Analysis: Although there was a delay in sending the samples for analysis, the court found no evidence of tampering.

Need for Stricter Proof: Emphasizing the principle that "more serious the offence, stricter the degree of proof," the court found the prosecution’s story unconvincing.

Decision: The High Court acquitted the appellants, citing a lack of convincing evidence and noting inconsistencies in the prosecution's narrative. The stringent punishment mandated under the NDPS Act necessitated a higher standard of proof, which was not met in this case.

Date of Decision: April 4, 2024

Balwinder Singh and another vs State of Punjab