IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SURESHWAR THAKUR, KULDEEP TIWARI, JJ.
Naib Singh @ Naiby – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRA-D-1081-DB-2017 (O&M)
Decided on : 08-08-2023
NDPS Act - Destruction of Seized Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the conviction of the accused under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) for possession of prohibited substances. The accused was found in possession of Alprazolam tablets and Lomotil pouches, leading to his arrest and subsequent trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the certified inventory and the report of the Chemical Analyst were not sufficient to prove the charge against the accused. The court emphasized the necessity of producing the examined sample cloth parcels and the report of the FSL as primary evidence to sustain the charge under the NDPS Act.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the sufficiency of evidence to prove the charge under the NDPS Act. The court highlighted the importance of the laboratory testing of the seized substances and the production of the examined sample cloth parcels and the FSL report as primary evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the mere production of the certified inventory and the report of the Chemical Analyst was not sufficient to prove the charge under the NDPS Act. It emphasized the necessity of laboratory testing of the seized substances and the production of the examined sample cloth parcels and the FSL report as primary evidence.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, quashed the impugned judgment, and acquitted the appellant of the charges. The fine amount, if any, deposited by the appellant, was ordered to be refunded. The personal and surety bonds of the accused were cancelled, and the case property, if not required, was to be dealt with in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT :
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.
1. The instant appeal is directed against the impugned verdict, as made on 1.9.2017, upon case bearing CIS No. 589 of 2014, by the learned Judge, Special Court, Bathinda, wherethrough in respect of charge drawn against the accused qua offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), the learned trial Judge concerned, proceeded to record a finding of conviction against accused-appellant. Moreover, through a separate sentencing order of even date, the learned trial Judge concerned, sentenced the convict to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of Eleven years for commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, besides also imposed, upon the convict sentence of fine, as comprised in a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/-, and, in default of payment of fine amount, he sentenced the convict to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year.
2. The period of detention undergone by the convict, during the investigations, and, trial of the case, was, in terms of Section 428 of the Cr.P.C., rather ordered to be set off from the above imposed sentence(s) of imprisonment.
3. The accused-convict becomes aggrieved from the above drawn verdict of conviction, besides also, becomes aggrieved from the consequent thereto sentence(s) of imprisonment, and, of fine as became imposed, upon him, by the learned convicting Court concerned, and, hence has chosen to institute thereagainst the instant criminal appeal, before this Court.
Factual Background
4. The genesis of the prosecution case becomes embodied in the appeal FIR, to which Ex. P8 is assigned. The narrations carried in Ex. P8 are, that on 22.3.2013, ASI Jagdeep Singh (investigating officer) along with HC Gurmeet Singh, HC Mangat Singh and PHG Simarjit Singh being on "patrolling-cum-checking of suspected persons duty" was going from Phul towards village Dhipali on his personal car bearing registration No. PB-45-4950. When the police party crossed 200 yards ahead of minor canal from village Dhipali towards village Dhingar, then one person was seen coming with a polythene of black colour in his hand, who on seeing the police party got perplexed and after throwing the said polythene, tried to slip towards the fields on his left hand side. On suspicion, the investigating officer concerned, apprehended him with the help of other police officials. On asking, he disclosed his name as Naib Singh @ Naiby son of Piara Singh resident of Village Dhipali. Thereafter the investigating officer concerned, brought the accused where he had thrown the polythene, and, found that the mouth of the plastic bag was open and intoxicant tablets and pouches were clearly visible from the same. On checking the polythene, he found 20 strips of Alprazolam tablets each containing 50 tablets, 19 pouches tablets Lomotil each pouch containing 100 tablets. Thereafter, he took sample of a strip of Alprazolam containing 50 tablets, and, one pouch of Lomotil containing 100 tablets, as sample, and, converted into sample parcel. He converted the remaining strips of Alprazolam and pouches of Lomotil into bulk parcel and sealed both the parcels with his seal bearing impression "JS". Sample seal was separately prepared, and, seal after its use, was handed over to HC Gurmit Singh. All the parcels were taken into possession vide separate memo, attested by the witnesses. Ruqa was sent to the police station through PHG HC Mangat Ram on the basis of which FIR under Section 22 of NDPS Act was registered against the accused. Site plan of place of recovery was prepared. Accused was arrested. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. On return to police station, ASI Harbans Singh being officiating SHO retained the case prope
The necessity of laboratory testing of seized substances and the production of examined sample cloth parcels and the FSL report as primary evidence to sustain a charge under the NDPS Act.
The court established that the production of examined sample parcels is crucial for proving charges under the NDPS Act, and certified inventories alone are insufficient without laboratory testing.
(1) Section 52A of NDPS Act is a mandatory rule of evidence – When there is non-compliance of Section 52A of NDPS Act, where a certification of a Magistrate is lacking any inventory, photograph or li....
The non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act, concerning inventory and sampling procedures, renders the prosecution's case invalid.
The prosecution's failure to produce primary evidence of seized contraband under the NDPS Act vitiated the trial, leading to the reversal of the conviction.
The necessity of complying with statutory requirements for personal search, preservation of case property, and the production of untampered case property in court as primary evidence to prove the cha....
Strict adherence to procedural safeguards in narcotics cases is essential; failure to comply can lead to acquittal.
The court established that procedural lapses in the handling of seized narcotics do not necessarily invalidate a conviction if the evidence of possession is compelling and no prejudice to the accused....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.