NDPS Court Cannot Issue Warrants at Investigation Stage: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"Disclosure Statement of Co-Accused Is Not Substantive Evidence" – In a significant ruling reasserting the procedural safeguards available to accused persons under the NDPS Act, the Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside a series of orders through which a petitioner was declared a proclaimed person and non-bailable warrants were issued against him in a narcotics case.

P&H High Court Court found that the issuance of non-bailable warrants during investigation and the subsequent proclamation under Section 82 CrPC were in gross violation of statutory provisions, particularly as the petitioner was never served any notice and was not even named in the FIR but implicated only through the disclosure of a co-accused.

The petitioner had approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, seeking quashing of multiple impugned orders dated 26.09.2023, 16.10.2023, 30.11.2023, 06.01.2024, 06.02.2024, and 28.03.2024 passed by the Magistrate in FIR No. 58 of 2023, registered under Section 22 of the NDPS Act, at Police Station City-I, District Malerkotla.

At the heart of the dispute was the procedural illegality of the arrest and proclamation process. The High Court was categorical in observing that “in absence of proper service of notice or summons, the declaration of the petitioner as a proclaimed person is illegal.” Furthermore, the Court held that the Magistrate’s power to issue such warrants during investigation under the NDPS Act was non-existent, citing the bar under Section 36-A(1)(b) of the NDPS Act.

“Court Lacked Jurisdiction; Entire Proceeding Coram Non Judice”: Magistrate Cannot Issue NBWs During Investigation Under NDPS Act

The petitioner was neither named in the original FIR nor found in possession of any contraband. His implication arose solely from a second disclosure statement made by a co-accused pharmacist, with whom the petitioner was allegedly employed. The High Court held that such a statement cannot be the basis for prosecution in the absence of independent corroboration, reiterating the principle laid down in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, where the Supreme Court held that a disclosure by a co-accused is not substantive evidence.

The trial court had issued non-bailable warrants (NBWs) and declared the petitioner a proclaimed person under Section 82 CrPC, despite the fact that he was never served with summons or notice. The Court condemned this procedural lapse, stating that the action was “coram non judice”, meaning without legal authority.

The High Court emphasized that as per Section 36-A of the NDPS Act, the Magistrate’s power is restricted to authorizing detention for 15 days and cannot extend to issuing warrants during investigation. The Court relied on precedents such as M.C. Abraham v. State of Maharashtra (2003) and Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal (2007), where the Apex Court had held that warrants cannot be issued to aid investigation or compel attendance at the pre-cognizance stage.

Further, the Bench observed that even assuming cognizance had been taken, only summons or bailable warrants could have been issued, and not NBWs without justification. The Court pointedly noted:
“Even if the Court had taken cognizance, only notice/summons could have been issued but under no circumstances NBWs could have been issued that too by a Court which is coram non judice.”

Proclamation Without Notice Violates Section 82 CrPC; Court Grants 10 Days’ Protection and Conditional Bail

The Court also held that the proclamation order dated 28.03.2024 was issued in violation of Section 82 CrPC, since there was no prior service of notice or summons to the petitioner. In light of the petitioner’s undertaking to surrender and face trial, the Court quashed the impugned orders and all subsequent proceedings, directing conditional relief.

The High Court imposed costs of ₹5,00,000, directing that:

• ₹2,00,000 be paid to the Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Association Welfare Fund

• ₹2,00,000 to the High Court Employees' Welfare Association

• ₹50,000 each to Society for Care of Blind, Sector 26, Chandigarh, and Spinal Rehab Centre, Sector 28-A, Chandigarh

The petitioner was granted 10 days’ protection from arrest, with a direction to appear before the Trial Court within 10 days and file an appropriate application for bail, along with proof of payment of costs. Upon compliance, the Trial Court is to admit the petitioner to bail during the pendency of the trial, subject to its satisfaction.

However, the Court made it unequivocally clear that non-compliance would result in automatic revival of the impugned orders, and the present petition would be deemed dismissed.

“Orders Declaring Petitioner as Proclaimed Person Stand Quashed” – Judicial Oversight Cannot Override Procedural Safeguards, Especially Under NDPS Act

This ruling serves as a strong reminder that statutory safeguards, particularly under the NDPS regime, cannot be bypassed in the name of procedural expediency or investigation. The High Court’s decision not only reinstates the importance of due process but also reiterates that co-accused disclosures, absent corroboration, cannot form the bedrock of prosecution.

In reaffirming the constitutional protection against arbitrary deprivation of liberty, especially under stringent laws like the NDPS Act, the Court has sent a clear message to trial courts that jurisdictional boundaries and procedural fairness must not be transgressed.

Date of Decision: 24 December 2025