IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Illegal search and seizure – Statutory scheme prescribes that for convicting a person under Section 58 of NDPS Act, he must be tried summarily.
(2) Good faith – A public servant is under a moral and legal obligation to perform his duty with truth, honesty, honour, loyalty and faith – Act has to be official and not private – Presumption of good faith could be dislodged only by cogent and clinching material.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. GAVAI, J.

I. INTRODUCTION:

1. The present appeal challenges the final judgment and order dated 14th October 2010, passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Revision No. 2194 of 2008, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the Criminal Revision filed by the appellant herein and upheld the order dated 30th May 2008 passed by the Presiding Officer¹ [‘Special Judge’ hereinafter] Special Court, Kurukshetra wherein the learned Special Judge placed the typed and dictated order relating to the proceedings initiated against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 58 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985² [‘NDPS Act’ hereinafter] in a sealed cover to be delivered by the successor learned Special Judge.

II. FACTS:

2. Shorn of details, the facts leading to the present appeal are as under:

2.1. The appellant was posted as the Superintendent of Police³ [‘S.P.’ hereinafter] Kurukshetra from the period 21st May 2004 to 18th March 2005.

2.2. On 6th January 2005, Inspector Ram Kumar, along with other Police officials, was present at the ‘T’ point in village Masana on G.T. Road, District Kurukshetra in a Government Vehicle, for the purpose of patrolling. Secret information was received that one Ran Singh, who was involved in the sale of Opium, was having a large quantity of Opium with him and could be apprehended. Based on this, a raiding party was formed which reached the residence of Ran Singh. Shri Virender Kumar Vij, Deputy Superintendent of Police⁴ [‘D.S.P.’ hereinafter] reached the spot and he directed a search to be conducted. Ran Singh was found near his residence, and he had covered himself in a blanket. He was apprehended and was found holding a white coloured plastic bag in his right hand. The plastic bag was searched and Opium weighing 8 Kgs. 700 grams was recovered. Based on the aforementioned facts, a First Information Report⁵ [‘F.I.R.’ hereinafter] No. 08 of 2005 was registered at Police Station, Shahbad, Kurukshetra for the commission of offence punishable under Section 18 of the NDPS Act. As per the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Haryana, Madhuban, Karnal, the material recovered was found to be Opium.

2.3. On 8th January 2005, an application was filed by Ran Singh through a relative, wherein he claimed that he was innocent, and that the Opium had been planted upon him by one Surjeet Singh and others. The appellant, utilizing her powers as the S.P., took cognizance of the application and directed Shri Ram Phal, D.S.P. to conduct an inquiry. The inquiry was conducted, and the report was submitted on the same day, wherein it was revealed that Ran Singh was innocent, and the Opium had been planted by Surjeet Singh, Angrez Singh and Mehar Deen. The report was sent to the appellant on the next day, i.e. 9th January 2005, and on the same day, the discharge report of Ran Singh was prepared. A discharge application was filed by Ran Singh on 10th January 2005 before the learned Special Judge, but the same was dismissed by order dated 20th January 2005.

2.4. The appellant was transferred on 18th March 2005, and joined as S.P., Government Railway Police, Haryana. Meanwhile, the investigation was concluded and the final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973⁶ [‘Cr.P.C.’ hereinafter] was filed on 24th March 2005. The final report revealed that the Opium was planted by Surjeet Singh, Angrez Singh and Mehar Deen and they were made the accused persons.

2.5. Ran Singh filed another application for discharge on the grounds that he was not named in the final report, but the learned Special Judge vide order dated 27th September 2005 dismissed the discharg