IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on:20.01.2026 Pronounced on: 07.03.2026.

Om Parkash ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Argued by :Mr. Shivansh Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) :

The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panckhula while dealing with a complaint, filed by the respondent-State through Drug Control Officer, has observed that a prima facie case for framing of charge for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 28, 27(b) (ii) and 28-B of Drug and Cosmetics Act 1940 is made out against the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved of the above mentioned order, hence the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of aforementioned order.

2. In nut-shell the facts emerging from record are that on 31.08.2015 the accused a team of police officials received a tip-off from a source that the petitioner was carrying some narcotic substance. As per the case projected, by the police acting upon the above mentioned information the accused was apprehended along with a polythene bag and when the contents of the bag were checked it was found that in the above mentioned polythene bag there were narcotic drugs, currency notes and other medicines. According to the case set-out by the prosecution during the course of above mentioned recovery process/investigation, the petitioner-accused, hereinafter being referred to as ‘petitioner’ only, fled from the spot. In view of above mentioned happening two cases were registered against the petitioner; one case was vide FIR No.175 dated 01.09.2015, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 22 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, hereinafter being referred to as NDPS Act, and the another was vide FIR i.e. FIR No.176 dated 02.09.2015 for the commission of offence punishable under Section 224, 225, 420 IPC and Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act.

3. Heard.

4. It has been contented on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is a victim of double jeopardy as with regard to the same incident, i.e. recovery of narcotic substance and other drugs, he has already faced trial in the Court of leaned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula and a final verdict has already been passed by the leaned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula. As per learned counsel for the petitioner this fact already stands decided that the prosecution has failed to prove the recovery of any narcotic substance or drug from the possession of petitioner. According to learned counsel for the petitioner once the above mentioned question has already been determined, the petitioner cannot be tried for the recovery of the same contraband, by a different Court.

5. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that otherwise also the second trial is bound to fail as the entire trial is founded upon the plea that recovery of contraband had taken place from the possession of petitioner by the police authority and qua that aspect the police authority have already failed in the former trial.

6. The above mentioned arguments have been controverted by the learned State counsel. According to learned State counsel irrespective of the fact that the incident of recovery is common in the previously instituted case, under NDPS Act, and the present complaint, under Drugs and Cosmetics Act, yet the law permits the conduct of present trial as the recovery of narcotic substance is an offence under Narcotic Substance Act and the recovery of other drugs without licence is covered under Drugs and Cosmetics Act. According to learned State counsel the facts of the present case are quite peculiar wherein it is established that by doing one act the petitioner had violated several provisions of law covered under different acts. According to learned State counsel since the procedure for prosecution in di