Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property Dispute

NDPS |unnatural and improbable nature of the prosecution's story - Subsequent FIR Contrary to Settled Law, Acquittal Inevitable: Punjab and Haryana HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in a landmark judgment, acquitted Saurav Partap @ Sourav @ Sunny and another in a drug trafficking case under the NDPS Act. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi, in his ruling, emphasized the illegality of registering a subsequent FIR based on the same transaction, terming it "contrary to settled law," leading to the acquittal of the appellants.

The judgment focused on the legal impropriety of registering multiple FIRs for a series of acts connected to the same transaction. The defense's argument was anchored in the precedent that subsequent FIRs, arising from disclosure statements in an ongoing investigation, are legally untenable.

The case traced back to the arrest of one Sandeep Kumar @ Bhamari, who was found in possession of smack. Following his arrest, Kumar implicated the appellants, leading to their arrest and the recovery of more narcotics. This sequence of events spurred the registration of a second FIR, which became the central issue in the appeal.

Justice Bedi critically assessed the evidence and the sequence of events, underscoring the unnatural and improbable nature of the prosecution's story. He pointed out the legal misstep in registering the second FIR, drawing from precedents like Mr. David Johnson vs State of Goa and Naresh Kakkar vs The State of. The absence of independent witnesses and the sidelining of local police in the recovery process further weakened the prosecution's case.

The Court overturned the conviction and sentence dated 14.09.2015 by the Special Court, Amritsar, acquitting the appellants. This decision hinged on the principle against multiple FIRs for the same transaction and the dubious circumstances of the prosecution's narrative.

Date of Decision: 15.02.2024

Saurav Partap @ Sourav @ Sunny & Another vs State of Punjab

Latest Legal News