Mention of FIR Number on Documents Prepared Before Registration Is a Serious Infirmity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Investigation in NDPS Case

“Such Procedural Irregularities Raise Grave Suspicion About the Recovery Itself”, In a significant ruling Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the conviction of multiple accused under Section 15(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, due to serious lapses in the search and seizure procedure. While delivering judgment, Justice Yashvir Singh Rathor held that procedural violations — particularly the mention of FIR number on documents allegedly prepared at the spot even before the FIR was registered — rendered the recovery “highly doubtful” and vitiated the entire prosecution case.

The Court emphasized that strict compliance with statutory provisions governing search and seizure under the NDPS Act is not optional and that even minor deviations can fatally undermine the prosecution’s case due to the draconian nature of the legislation.

Court Slams Mention of FIR Number in Recovery Memo Prepared Before FIR Registration

“The very fact that the recovery memo, site plan, arrest memo, and even the notice under Section 50 NDPS Act contained the FIR number — even before the FIR was actually registered — raises serious doubts about the timing and authenticity of the documents,” the Court observed.

Justice Rathor noted that this procedural anomaly is not a mere technicality but goes to the very root of the credibility of the alleged recovery. He relied on earlier decisions, including Didar Singh @ Dara v. State of Punjab (2010 (3) RCR (Criminal) 337), Ajay Malik v. State of U.T. Chandigarh (2009 (3) RCR (Criminal) 649), and Kewal Singh v. State of Punjab (2018 (4) RCR (Criminal) 580), all of which have consistently held that mention of the FIR number on documents purportedly prepared at the spot before registration of the FIR indicates that such documents were likely prepared later at the police station, casting a shadow over the entire investigation.

“In the present case also, the FIR number finds mention on all the documents prepared prior to registration of the FIR and, thus, it raises doubt about the fairness of the investigation and renders the prosecution case doubtful,” the Court stated categorically.

Prosecution Failed to Explain How FIR Number Was Pre-Entered

The prosecution offered no explanation as to how the FIR number had already been written on the documents if the FIR was registered only later, after the alleged search and seizure. The Court deemed this unexplained circumstance as a “serious infirmity” and held that it points towards manipulation or back-dating of the documents — a practice that courts have repeatedly condemned.

Justice Rathor held, “If documents such as recovery memo and site plan — which are required to be prepared contemporaneously at the time of seizure — contain the FIR number before the FIR was even registered, it creates a legitimate and serious suspicion that such documents were fabricated or post-facto created in the police station.”

“Entire Purpose of Search Becomes Suspect When It Is Not Done in the Manner Prescribed”: High Court Emphasizes Need for Integrity in Procedure

The Court reiterated that search and seizure under the NDPS Act must be conducted with complete transparency and adherence to statutory protocols, given the harsh punishments prescribed under the law. The mentioning of FIR details on documents prior to FIR registration was held to be an indication that the entire search procedure might have been a paper exercise conducted at the police station, rather than in the field, as required by law.

In light of these findings, the Court held that the entire recovery stood vitiated and could not be the basis for conviction.

Conviction Set Aside Due to Procedural Impropriety in Search and Seizure

Justice Yashvir Singh Rathor set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court and ordered the acquittal of all appellants, observing that:

“This is a serious lapse which goes to the root of the case, and once the recovery itself becomes doubtful, the entire prosecution case crumbles.”

The Court also ordered that the case property be confiscated and destroyed in accordance with rules, and that the jeep involved be returned to the registered owner.

Date of Decision: January 8, 2026