Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court Acquits Appellants in NDPS Case - Violation of Procedural Safeguards

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar passed a judgment acquitting the appellants Arjun Singh @ Marra, Manohar Lal, and Sukhwinder Singh @ Billa in a Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act case. The court observed that the prosecution failed to adhere to crucial procedural safeguards, leading to the suffocation of the prosecution case.

Justice Brar remarked, “The sanctity of statutory instructions cannot be blatantly flouted, and substantial compliance must be insisted upon to preserve the physical evidence’s integrity.”

The case revolved around the conflict between Section 52-A of the NDPS Act and Standing Order No. 1 of 1988, which required drawing representative samples of the seized contraband. The court found that the investigating agency violated the Act’s provisions by not following the specified procedure for sample drawing.

Further, the court stressed the importance of associating an independent witness during the investigation. Quoting a previous Supreme Court decision, Justice Brar emphasized, “Failure to involve an independent witness creates doubts regarding the impartiality of the investigation.”

The judgment highlighted the significance of fair and impartial investigations in criminal cases, underscoring that “justice must not only be done but must appear to be done.” The court also cited the legal maxim “nemo debet esse judex in sua propria causa,” which means “no one should be a judge in their own case.”

While the case was pending prior to a recent landmark ruling, the court clarified that the law laid down in the subsequent case would not be retroactively applied to cases in progress. However, in this specific case, the prosecution evidence was deemed inadequate to prove the appellants’ complicity beyond a reasonable doubt.

This ruling reaffirms the paramount importance of adhering to procedural safeguards during investigations to ensure a fair trial, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It also underscores the need to avoid conflicts between statutory provisions and instructions, preserving public faith and trust in the criminal justice system.

Date of Decision: 28th July 2023

Arjun Singh @ Marra and another vs State of Punjab

Latest Legal News