Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention and Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored” - Punjab & Haryana High Court Emphasizes Bail as the Rule Taxation Law | Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Hotel’s Expenditures on Carpets, Mattresses, and Lampshades are Deductible as Current Expenditures Orissa High Court Upholds Disengagement of Teacher for Unauthorized Absence and Suppression of Facts In Disciplined Forces, Transfers are an Administrative Necessity; Judicial Interference is Limited to Cases of Proven Mala Fide: Patna High Court Act Of Judge, When Free From Oblique Motive, Cannot Be Questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Additional Collector Registration Act | False Statements in Conveyance Documents Qualify for Prosecution Under Registration Act: Kerala High Court When Junior is Promoted, Senior’s Case Cannot be Deferred Unjustly: Karnataka High Court in Sealed Cover Promotion Dispute Medical Training Standards Cannot Be Lowered, Even for Disability’ in MBBS Admission Case: Delhi HC Suspicion, However Strong It May Be, Cannot Take Place Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal No Detention Order Can Rely on Grounds Already Quashed: High Court Sets Precedent on Preventive Detention Limits Tenant's Claims of Hardship and Landlord's Alternate Accommodations Insufficient to Prevent Eviction: Allahabad HC Further Custodial Detention May Not Be Necessary: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Citing Lack of Specific Evidence High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court A Fresh Section 11 Arbitration Petition Without Liberty Granted at the Time of Withdrawal is Not Maintainable: Supreme Court; Principles of Order 23 CPC Applied Adult Sexual Predators Ought Not To Be Dealt With Leniency Or Extended Misplaced Sympathy: Sikkim High Court Retired Employee Entitled to Interest on Delayed Leave Encashment Despite Absence of Statutory Provision: Delhi HC Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Full Disability Pension and Service Element for Life to Army Veteran Taxation Law | Director Must Be Given Notice to Prove Lack of Negligence: Telangana High Court Quashes Order Against Director in Tax Recovery Case High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court

PH High Court Affirms Convictions in Heroin Smuggling Case, Highlights Importance of Section 43 NDPS Act Compliance

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Justices emphasize that Section 43, not Section 42, of NDPS governs seizures in public places.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh has upheld the convictions of Rajinder Singh @ Bittu and Baljit Singh in a significant heroin smuggling case, affirming the decisions of the trial court. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Gurvinder Singh Gill and N.S. Shekhawat, underscores the applicability of Section 43 of the NDPS Act over Section 42 for seizures from public places, thereby dismissing the appeals against their sentences.

Rajinder Singh @ Bittu and Baljit Singh were apprehended with 25 kilograms of heroin from a vehicle parked on the Amritsar-Jalandhar GT Road. The prosecution’s case relied heavily on the procedural adherence during the seizure, the credibility of official witnesses, and the handling of evidence. Both appellants were convicted under various sections of the NDPS Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including for forgery and possession of stolen property.

The appellants argued non-compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act, which mandates written recording of information and notifying senior officers. However, the court determined that Section 43 was applicable as the seizure occurred in a public place. The court noted, “Section 43 does not require the procedural formalities prescribed under Section 42,” reaffirming the legality of the conducted search and seizure.

The prosecution’s reliance on official witnesses was contested by the defense due to the absence of independent witnesses. The court upheld the credibility of official testimonies, emphasizing that the independent witness initially involved had colluded with the accused. The court stated, “Official witnesses’ testimonies are reliable, especially in high-stakes recoveries involving substantial contraband.”

Addressing the compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, which pertains to personal search, the court clarified its inapplicability in vehicle searches. The judgment highlighted, “Section 50 is relevant only for personal searches and not for vehicles or containers,” ensuring that the procedural adherence in this case was sufficient.

The court also addressed the use of a stolen vehicle with a fake number plate by the appellants. It was established that the vehicle, a Tavera, originally bore a Delhi registration number but was fraudulently modified. The court upheld convictions under Sections 467, 468, 471, and 411 of the IPC, reinforcing the link between the appellants and the vehicle used in the crime.

Concerns regarding the delay in dispatching samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) were dismissed by the court. It noted that the integrity of the evidence was maintained as the seals were intact, thus ensuring the credibility of the forensic results.

The High Court’s decision to dismiss the appeals and uphold the convictions underscores the judiciary’s stringent stance on procedural compliance in narcotics cases. This judgment reaffirms the application of Section 43 for public place seizures and the credibility of official witnesses, setting a significant precedent for future narcotic-related cases. The affirmation of the lower court’s rigorous sentencing sends a strong message about the consequences of large-scale drug smuggling and the importance of maintaining procedural integrity.

Case Title: Rajinder Singh @ Bittu & Baljit Singh v. State of Punjab

Date of Decision: May 29, 2024

Similar News