The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of fair and impartial investigation, compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, and the role of further investigation in ensuring fair trial and natural justice.

DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.

1. Petitioner Abhishek Chetal has approached this Court by way of filing the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short - “Cr.P.C.”) for handing over the investigation in case FIR No. 18 dated 09.11.2016 under Sections 21, 25, 29/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short - “NDPS Act”) registered at Police Station-State Special Operation Cell (SSOC), Distt. Amritsar (Annexure P-1) to some independent agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short - “CBI”). A further prayer has also been made that the investigation conducted be monitored by this Court with the direction to the investigating agency to conclude the investigation at the earliest.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the present petition are that the petitioner is a qualified civil engineer from Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar. He is having brilliant academic record and dealing with business of shawls. Not only the petitioner but his family members are also pursuing the business activities in different fields. He is also having business dealings with certain businessmen from Pakistan including M/s Mir Shawls, Lahore, represented by Zaheer Abbas. He has been in conversation with said person of Pakistan from time to time.

3. On 08.11.2016, the petitioner went to Amritsar City and was carrying stock of shawls. He was also having some cash amount with him. While on the way back, at about 09:20 p.m., at toll plaza Dhilwan, his vehicle was stopped by certain persons who were in civil clothes and he was also taken to Amritsar SSOC Police Station. He was threatened, forced and coerced to make self-incriminating disclosures. He was also compelled to handover the cash, which he was carrying. Beatings were also given to him. A cash of Rs. 39,73,000/- was shown to be recovered from him as ‘drug money’ and false recovery of 500 grams heroin was planted upon him. A number of representations were made by the father of the petitioner namely Baldev Krishan Chetal. As per case of the prosecution, he was found to be in possession of 500 grams of heroin and a sum of Rs. 39,73,000/- in cash as drug money. He was taken into custody. FIR, as detailed above, was registered against him.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged recovery at Daburji bypass was totally false and without having any truth. The CCTV footage of toll plaza Dhilwan reflects that the petitioner along with his vehicle was hijacked by certain persons in civil clothes at 09:20 p.m., whereas the distance between Daburji bypass and Dhilwan is more than 30 kilometers. Learned counsel also submits that the presence of the petitioner along with his vehicle can be verified from the call details/tower location of mobile No. 9915309396 of the petitioner on the relevant date i.e. 08.11.2016 as well as the phone-call records/tower location of the concerned police officials of SSOC, whose numbers are reflected in the FIR. Learned counsel submits that the call details of the mobile of the petitioner as well as photographs of toll plaza of Dhilwan are also annexed with the petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that vide order dated 25.08.2017, after recording contentions, a detailed direction was issued by this Court as certain documents including CCTV footage and call details were not taken into consideration by the Investigating Officer. The matter was referred to ADGP, Bureau of Investigation, Punjab with the direction to appoint a senior officer to look into the plea of the petitioner, collect all relevant evidence and to submit the report before this Court. The report was submitted in a sealed cover on 18.12.2017. The copy of the report was also provided to him as investigation was completed. Thereafter, the case was adjourned on various dates as CFSL report was not received. Subsequently, the CFSL report was produced before this Court. Challan was pr