Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

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