Non-Compliance with NDPS Act Provisions is Per Se Prejudicial to the Accused: Punjab and Haryana High Court in Acquittal Case

In a significant ruling, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the State of Haryana’s appeal against the acquittal of Darbara Singh and others, who were charged under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The bench, comprising Justices Gurvinder Singh Gill and N.S. Shekhawat, upheld the trial court’s decision citing non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements under Sections 42 and 57 of the NDPS Act and unreliable evidence.

The case arose from an FIR registered based on a secret informer’s tip-off about the illegal possession and transportation of poppy husk by the respondents. The trial court acquitted the respondents, citing procedural lapses and unreliable evidence. The State of Haryana appealed against this acquittal, challenging the trial court’s findings.

Compliance with Section 42 of NDPS Act: The court emphasized the mandatory nature of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, which requires officers to take down secret information in writing and communicate it to superior officers. The court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajender Singh v. State of Haryana, which mandates strict compliance with these provisions. In this case, the prosecution failed to produce any written record or communication of the secret information, leading the court to conclude non-compliance with Section 42.

Importance of Independent Witnesses: The reliability of the independent witness, Chhabeg Singh, was called into question. The court noted that Chhabeg Singh had prior associations with the investigating officer and had been involved in multiple cases as a witness, undermining his credibility. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to join unbiased public witnesses in the investigation, casting doubts on the fairness of the proceedings.

Procedural Non-Compliance: The court highlighted significant procedural lapses, including the failure to prepare a report under Section 57 of the NDPS Act and to produce it before superior officers. The prosecution’s star witness, PW5 Om Parkash, admitted in cross-examination that these mandatory reports were not prepared or sent. This total non-compliance with statutory provisions rendered the search and seizure operations invalid.

The court reiterated the principles of appellate review of acquittals, emphasizing the double presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. The judgment underscored that acquittals should not be overturned unless there are compelling reasons and substantial errors in the trial court’s judgment. The appellate court found no such reasons or errors warranting the reversal of the trial court’s decision.

Justice N.S. Shekhawat remarked, “The non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act is per se prejudicial to the accused and vitiates the proceedings against them.”

The High Court’s dismissal of the appeal underscores the critical importance of adhering to procedural safeguards in criminal investigations, particularly under stringent laws like the NDPS Act. This judgment reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the rights of the accused and ensuring fair trial standards. The ruling is expected to have significant implications for future cases under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the necessity of strict compliance with statutory provisions to secure convictions.

Date of Decision: 30^th May 2024

State of Haryana v. Darbara Singh and Others