Absence of Sanction Under Section 59(3) NDPS Act Renders Prosecution Against Prison Official Invalid: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has intervened in a criminal trial against a jail constable posted at Central Jail, Bathinda, who faced charges of facilitating the inflow of contraband into the prison facility. Justice Ramesh Chander Dimri, hearing the petition of Jaskaran Singh, has granted a stay on all further trial court proceedings until the next hearing, citing significant legal infirmities in the initiation of the case.

Case Background The controversy stems from allegations that the petitioner, a security constable, utilized his position to supply intoxicating substances to undertrial prisoners in exchange for financial gains. The prosecution alleged that a sum of ₹77,000 was routed via UPI to a bank account linked to the constable’s mother.

However, the accused's defense challenged the very foundation of the prosecution. Evidence surfaced indicating that the transaction was recorded by a third party, Sukhmanbir Singh, who explicitly stated the funds were intended for buying clothes for an undertrial prisoner, rather than for illicit substances. More importantly, the petitioner argued that the state’s legal procedure fell short of the mandatory statutory requirements.

The Core Legal Challenge The legal battle pivots on the interpretation of Section 59(3) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Nikhil Ghai, contended that:

  1. Mandatory Sanction: Under Section 59(3) of the NDPS Act, the court is prohibited from taking cognizance of an offense under Section 59(2) unless a complaint is filed in writing, accompanied by previous sanction from the Central or State Government.
  2. Procedural Lapse: Instead of a compliant authorized by the government, the authorities filed a standard final report (charge sheet).
  3. Prisons Act Concerns: The petitioner further argued that the charges framed under Section 52 of the Prisons Act were procedurally flawed, as the provision does not contemplate the registration of an FIR in this manner but rather a specific oversight mechanism involving the Jail Superintendent and a Magistrate.

Key Observations The order articulated the petitioner's challenge to the procedural integrity of the case:

  • " Cognizance could not have been taken except on a complaint in writing that too with the previous sanction... as the case may be."
  • Regarding the Prisons Act contention: "...for an offence under Section 52 of the Prisons Act also, no FIR could have been registered."
  • The Court noted that the current litigation is based on an " impugned FIR [which] was registered which has even led to filing of a final report and framing of charge/s."

The Court's Decision Recognizing the potential jurisdictional overreach in the trial court's cognizance of the matter, Justice Ramesh Chander Dimri issued a notice of motion returnable on September 9, 2026. Pending further deliberation, the Court ordered:

"Further proceedings before the trial Court shall remain stayed in the meanwhile."

This stay provides critical relief to the petitioner, halting the trial while the High Court examines whether the state’s failure to secure the required sanction nullifies the criminal proceedings entirely. If the court upholds the argument regarding Section 59(3), it could serve as a landmark precedent for the protection of public servants against prosecution initiated without the necessary statutory safeguards.