CRA-S-2489

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

Whether only operative part of the judgment is Pronounced : No

Whether full judgment is pronounced:

Amar Singh

State of Haryana

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL

Present:

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J.

1.

conviction dated 08.07.2004

by the learned

and convicted under Section

Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act

rigorous imprisonment for ten y

default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a

period of two years and

2489-SB-2004 (O&M)

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CRA-S- 2489

Reserved on: 21.05.2026

Pronounced on: 27.07.2026

Uploaded on: 2

only operative part of the judgment is Pronounced : No

Whether full judgment is pronounced: Yes

Versus

State of Haryana

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL

Ms. Uru Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant.

Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG, Haryana, for the Respondent State.

*****

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J.

The present appeal has been directed against the judgment of

dated 08.07.2004 and order of sentence dated

learned Special Judge, Panipat whereby the appellant was held guilty

and convicted under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act

rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 Lac

default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a

two years and six months.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

2489-SB-2004

Reserved on: 21.05.2026

Pronounced on: 27.07.2026

Uploaded on: 28.07.2026

only operative part of the judgment is Pronounced : No

...Appellant

...Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL

for the appellant.

Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG, Haryana, for the Respondent State.

The present appeal has been directed against the judgment of

and order of sentence dated 09.07.2004 , passed

whereby the appellant was held guilty

arcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act’) and sentenced to undergo

ears and to pay a fine of Rs.1 Lac and in

default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a

The present appeal has been directed against the judgment of

, passed

whereby the appellant was held guilty

arcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

) and sentenced to undergo

in

default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a

CRA-S-2489

2.

on 07.04.1998 a police

outside bus stand Panipat in connection with patrolling. T

coming from bus stand Panipat carrying a blue bag on his left shoulder. On

seeing the police party he turned back and started walking at a fast pace

which arous

apprehended the police party inquired abou

of carrying some contraband in the bag. So a notice Exhibit PE under

Section 50 of NDPS Act was given to him with an option to be searched in

presence of a

searched before a

appellant was searched

kgs of Charas was recovered from him.

the recovered contraband as sample, the residue along with the sample were

sealed with seal 'RS' and was taken into possession by the police vide

recovery memo EX.PF. Thereafter the sample along with the remaining

contraband and the accused were produc

sealed the sample and contraband with his seal 'SS'.

Sant Raj (PW7)

Malkhana with HC Naresh Kumar

same along with the sample seal

5) for depositing the same in the Office of Director FSL Madhuban

15.04.1998)

the FSL report Ex.PH and the completion of the

presented against the appellant.

2489-SB-2004 (O&M)

-2-

Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the prosecution is that,

on 07.04.1998 a police party headed by ASI Sant

outside bus stand Panipat in connection with patrolling. T

oming from bus stand Panipat carrying a blue bag on his left shoulder. On

seeing the police party he turned back and started walking at a fast pace

aroused suspicion amongst the police officials. When he was

apprehended the police party inquired about his identity as he was suspected

of carrying some contraband in the bag. So a notice Exhibit PE under

Section 50 of NDPS Act was given to him with an option to be searched in

a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer.

arched before a Gazetted Officer and accordingly

appellant was searched in the presence of PW

kgs of Charas was recovered from him. After separating 100 grams

the recovered contraband as sample, the residue along with the sample were

sealed with seal 'RS' and was taken into possession by the police vide

recovery memo EX.PF. Thereafter the sample along with the remaining

contraband and the accused were produced before the SHO, who counter

sealed the sample and contraband with his seal 'SS'.

(PW7) deposited this sample and the remaining contraband in the

Malkhana with HC Naresh Kumar (PW-4)

with the sample seal on 15.04.1998

for depositing the same in the Office of Director FSL Madhuban

who deposited it with the FSL on the same day.

report Ex.PH and the completion of the

presented against the appellant.

Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the prosecution is that,

ed by ASI Sant Raj (PW-7) was present

outside bus stand Panipat in connection with patrolling. They saw a person

oming from bus stand Panipat carrying a blue bag on his left shoulder. On

seeing the police party he turned back and started walking at a fast pace

suspicion amongst the police officials. When he was

t his identity as he was suspected

of carrying some contraband in the bag. So a notice Exhibit PE under

Section 50 of NDPS Act was given to him with an option to be searched in

Officer. Vide Ex.PE/1 he opted to be

and accordingly the bag carried by the

in the presence of PW9 Rattan Singh, DSP and 1.5

After separating 100 grams out of

the recovered contraband as sample, the residue along with the sample were

sealed with seal 'RS' and was taken into possession by the police vide

recovery memo EX.PF. Thereafter the sample along with the remaining

ed before the SHO, who counter

sealed the sample and contraband with his seal 'SS'. On the same day ASI

deposited this sample and the remaining contraband in the

who thereafter handed over the

on 15.04.1998 to HC Raghbir Singh (PW-

for depositing the same in the Office of Director FSL Madhuban (on

who deposited it with the FSL on the same day. On receipt of

report Ex.PH and the completion of the investigation, challan was

Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the prosecution is that,

was present

person

oming from bus stand Panipat carrying a blue bag on his left shoulder. On

seeing the police party he turned back and started walking at a fast pace

suspicion amongst the police officials. When he was

t his identity as he was suspected

of carrying some contraband in the bag. So a notice Exhibit PE under

Section 50 of NDPS Act was given to him with an option to be searched in

he opted to be

the bag carried by the

9 Rattan Singh, DSP and 1.5

of

the recovered contraband as sample, the residue along with the sample were

sealed with seal 'RS' and was taken into possession by the police vide

recovery memo EX.PF. Thereafter the sample along with the remaining

ed before the SHO, who counter

On the same day ASI

deposited this sample and the remaining contraband in the

the

-

on

On receipt of

investigation, challan was

CRA-S-2489

3.

for the commission of offence punishable un

to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4.

Singh, DSP (Retired) as P

PW3, H.C. Naresh Kumar as PW4, H.C. Raghbir Singh as PW5, Sumandar

Singh DSP as PW6, Sant Raj ASI (Retired)

and Rattan Singh DSP as PW9 besides tendering in evidence report of FSL

as Ex.PH and closed the prosecution evidence.

5.

incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put 

to  the  accused  during  the  course  of  their  examination  under  Section  313 

Cr.P.C.  The  appellant

pleaded false implication. 

spite of number of opportunities.

6.

evidence available on record, held the appellant guilty an

under Section 20

7.

judgment of conviction by

to appreciate the evidence on record in its correct perspective and has

ignored material infirmities which go to the root of the prosecution case. It

has been argued that the conviction has been recorded d

contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, unexplained

delay in sending the sample to the Forensic Science Laboratory, non

2489-SB-2004 (O&M)

-3-

Vide order dated 08.05.2001, the appellant was charge sheeted

for the commission of offence punishable un

to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In order to prove its case the prosecution examined Kartar

Singh, DSP (Retired) as PW1, Prithviraj ASI as PW2, H.C.

PW3, H.C. Naresh Kumar as PW4, H.C. Raghbir Singh as PW5, Sumandar

Singh DSP as PW6, Sant Raj ASI (Retired)

and Rattan Singh DSP as PW9 besides tendering in evidence report of FSL

as Ex.PH and closed the prosecution evidence.

On  the  conclusion  of  the  prosecution  evidence,  the 

incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put 

to  the  accused  during  the  course  of  their  examination  under  Section  313 

Cr.P.C.  The  appellant-accused  denied  the  prosecution  allegations  and 

pleaded false implication. No defence evidence was led by the appellant, in

spite of number of opportunities.

The learned trial Court, after appreciating and evaluating the

evidence available on record, held the appellant guilty an

under Section 20 of NDPS Act.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has assailed the

judgment of conviction by contending that the learned trial Court has failed

to appreciate the evidence on record in its correct perspective and has

ignored material infirmities which go to the root of the prosecution case. It

has been argued that the conviction has been recorded d

contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, unexplained

delay in sending the sample to the Forensic Science Laboratory, non

order dated 08.05.2001, the appellant was charge sheeted

for the commission of offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act

to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

rder to prove its case the prosecution examined Kartar

W1, Prithviraj ASI as PW2, H.C. Rajbir Singh as

PW3, H.C. Naresh Kumar as PW4, H.C. Raghbir Singh as PW5, Sumandar

as PW7, H.C.Dhan Raj as PW8

and Rattan Singh DSP as PW9 besides tendering in evidence report of FSL

as Ex.PH and closed the prosecution evidence.

On  the  conclusion  of  the  prosecution  evidence,  the 

incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put 

to  the  accused  during  the  course  of  their  examination  under  Section  313 

accused  denied  the  prosecution  allegations  and 

No defence evidence was led by the appellant, in

The learned trial Court, after appreciating and evaluating the

evidence available on record, held the appellant guilty and convicted him

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has assailed the

contending that the learned trial Court has failed

to appreciate the evidence on record in its correct perspective and has

ignored material infirmities which go to the root of the prosecution case. It

has been argued that the conviction has been recorded despite serious

contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, unexplained

delay in sending the sample to the Forensic Science Laboratory, non-

order dated 08.05.2001, the appellant was charge sheeted

der Section 20 of the NDPS Act

rder to prove its case the prosecution examined Kartar

Rajbir Singh as

PW3, H.C. Naresh Kumar as PW4, H.C. Raghbir Singh as PW5, Sumandar

as PW8

and Rattan Singh DSP as PW9 besides tendering in evidence report of FSL

On  the  conclusion  of  the  prosecution  evidence,  the 

incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put 

to  the  accused  during  the  course  of  their  examination  under  Section  313 

accused  denied  the  prosecution  allegations  and 

No defence evidence was led by the appellant, in

The learned trial Court, after appreciating and evaluating the

d convicted him

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has assailed the

contending that the learned trial Court has failed

to appreciate the evidence on record in its correct perspective and has

ignored material infirmities which go to the root of the prosecution case. It

espite serious

contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, unexplained

-

CRA-S-2489

association of independent witnesses though readily available, and non

compliance with the mandat

the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

8.

suffers from material inconsistencies regarding the manner in which the

recovered contraband was sealed and preserved. It is submitted that, as per

the ruqa prepared by the Investigating Officer, the

a tin container whereas the remaining contraband was kept in a plastic

container. However, while deposing before the Court, the Investigating

Officer stated that both the parcels were kept in tin containers. On the other

hand, PW-8 Dhan Raj deposed that the sample was kept in a plastic

container while the remaining contraband was kept in a tin box. According

to learned counsel, these contradictions relate to the identity and sanctity of

the case property and cannot be brushed asid

further been contended that there are material contradictions regarding the

sealing of the parcels. PW

affixed on the sample parcel, whereas PW

seal had been affixed. Similarly, PW

Superintendent of Police had not affixed his seal on the parcels, whereas

PW-9 DSP Rattan Singh deposed that the parcels had also been sealed with

his seal bearing impression "RS". It

versions strike at the credibility of the prosecution case and cast a serious

doubt upon the integrity of the sample allegedly recovered from the

appellant.

2489-SB-2004 (O&M)

-4-

association of independent witnesses though readily available, and non

compliance with the mandatory safeguards embodied under Section 50 of

the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Learned counsel has argued that the prosecution evidence

suffers from material inconsistencies regarding the manner in which the

recovered contraband was sealed and preserved. It is submitted that, as per

prepared by the Investigating Officer, the

a tin container whereas the remaining contraband was kept in a plastic

container. However, while deposing before the Court, the Investigating

Officer stated that both the parcels were kept in tin containers. On the other

8 Dhan Raj deposed that the sample was kept in a plastic

container while the remaining contraband was kept in a tin box. According

to learned counsel, these contradictions relate to the identity and sanctity of

the case property and cannot be brushed asid

further been contended that there are material contradictions regarding the

sealing of the parcels. PW-7 ASI Sant Raj deposed that two seals were

affixed on the sample parcel, whereas PW-8 Dhan Raj stated that only one

had been affixed. Similarly, PW-7 categorically stated that the Deputy

Superintendent of Police had not affixed his seal on the parcels, whereas

9 DSP Rattan Singh deposed that the parcels had also been sealed with

his seal bearing impression "RS". It has been argued that these conflicting

versions strike at the credibility of the prosecution case and cast a serious

doubt upon the integrity of the sample allegedly recovered from the

association of independent witnesses though readily available, and non-

ory safeguards embodied under Section 50 of

the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Learned counsel has argued that the prosecution evidence

suffers from material inconsistencies regarding the manner in which the

recovered contraband was sealed and preserved. It is submitted that, as per

prepared by the Investigating Officer, the sample parcel was kept in

a tin container whereas the remaining contraband was kept in a plastic

container. However, while deposing before the Court, the Investigating

Officer stated that both the parcels were kept in tin containers. On the other

8 Dhan Raj deposed that the sample was kept in a plastic

container while the remaining contraband was kept in a tin box. According

to learned counsel, these contradictions relate to the identity and sanctity of

the case property and cannot be brushed aside as minor discrepancies. It has

further been contended that there are material contradictions regarding the

7 ASI Sant Raj deposed that two seals were

8 Dhan Raj stated that only one

7 categorically stated that the Deputy

Superintendent of Police had not affixed his seal on the parcels, whereas

9 DSP Rattan Singh deposed that the parcels had also been sealed with

has been argued that these conflicting

versions strike at the credibility of the prosecution case and cast a serious

doubt upon the integrity of the sample allegedly recovered from the

-

ory safeguards embodied under Section 50 of

Learned counsel has argued that the prosecution evidence

suffers from material inconsistencies regarding the manner in which the

recovered contraband was sealed and preserved. It is submitted that, as per

sample parcel was kept in

a tin container whereas the remaining contraband was kept in a plastic

container. However, while deposing before the Court, the Investigating

Officer stated that both the parcels were kept in tin containers. On the other

8 Dhan Raj deposed that the sample was kept in a plastic

container while the remaining contraband was kept in a tin box. According

to learned counsel, these contradictions relate to the identity and sanctity of

e as minor discrepancies. It has

further been contended that there are material contradictions regarding the

7 ASI Sant Raj deposed that two seals were

8 Dhan Raj stated that only one

7 categorically stated that the Deputy

Superintendent of Police had not affixed his seal on the parcels, whereas

9 DSP Rattan Singh deposed that the parcels had also been sealed with

has been argued that these conflicting

versions strike at the credibility of the prosecution case and cast a serious

doubt upon the integrity of the sample allegedly recovered from the

CRA-S-2489

8.1.

witnesses have contradicted each other with regard to the weights used for

weighing the alleged contraband. According to him, these inconsistencies

assume significance in a prosecution under the NDPS Act, where strict

adherence to the prescribe

the recovered substance has a direct bearing on the nature of the offence and

the punishment prescribed.

8.2.

FIR in the present case was register

ASI Sant Raj, who thereafter continued to investigate the case. It has been

argued that the Investigating Officer himself being the complainant renders

the investigation unfair and contrary to the settled principles

learned counsel, the investigation conducted by the complainant himself

stands vitiated and the conviction based thereon cannot be sustained.

8.3.

was effected from the bus stand at P

place having high foot fall

Department. Despite the availability of several independent persons, no

effort was made by the investigating agency to associate any independent

witness with the search and recovery proceedings. It is argued that the

omission to join independent witnesses, without any plausible explanation,

assumes considerable significance in the facts of the present case and creates

a serious doubt about the fairness and transparency of the alleged recovery.

According to learned counsel, the

2489-SB-2004 (O&M)

-5-

Learned counsel has also pointed out that the

witnesses have contradicted each other with regard to the weights used for

weighing the alleged contraband. According to him, these inconsistencies

assume significance in a prosecution under the NDPS Act, where strict

adherence to the prescribed procedure is indispensable and the quantity of

the recovered substance has a direct bearing on the nature of the offence and

the punishment prescribed.

Another submission advanced by learned counsel is that the

FIR in the present case was registered on the basis of the

ASI Sant Raj, who thereafter continued to investigate the case. It has been

argued that the Investigating Officer himself being the complainant renders

the investigation unfair and contrary to the settled principles

learned counsel, the investigation conducted by the complainant himself

stands vitiated and the conviction based thereon cannot be sustained.

Learned counsel has next contended that the alleged recovery

was effected from the bus stand at Panipat, which is admittedly a public

place having high foot fall of general public

Department. Despite the availability of several independent persons, no

effort was made by the investigating agency to associate any independent

witness with the search and recovery proceedings. It is argued that the

to join independent witnesses, without any plausible explanation,

assumes considerable significance in the facts of the present case and creates

a serious doubt about the fairness and transparency of the alleged recovery.

According to learned counsel, the entire recovery has been falsely planted

Learned counsel has also pointed out that the prosecution

witnesses have contradicted each other with regard to the weights used for

weighing the alleged contraband. According to him, these inconsistencies

assume significance in a prosecution under the NDPS Act, where strict

d procedure is indispensable and the quantity of

the recovered substance has a direct bearing on the nature of the offence and

Another submission advanced by learned counsel is that the

ed on the basis of the ruqa sent by PW-7

ASI Sant Raj, who thereafter continued to investigate the case. It has been

argued that the Investigating Officer himself being the complainant renders

the investigation unfair and contrary to the settled principles. According to

learned counsel, the investigation conducted by the complainant himself

stands vitiated and the conviction based thereon cannot be sustained.

Learned counsel has next contended that the alleged recovery

anipat, which is admittedly a public

of general public and officials of the Transport

Department. Despite the availability of several independent persons, no

effort was made by the investigating agency to associate any independent

witness with the search and recovery proceedings. It is argued that the

to join independent witnesses, without any plausible explanation,

assumes considerable significance in the facts of the present case and creates

a serious doubt about the fairness and transparency of the alleged recovery.

entire recovery has been falsely planted

prosecution

witnesses have contradicted each other with regard to the weights used for

weighing the alleged contraband. According to him, these inconsistencies

assume significance in a prosecution under the NDPS Act, where strict

d procedure is indispensable and the quantity of

the recovered substance has a direct bearing on the nature of the offence and

Another submission advanced by learned counsel is that the

7

ASI Sant Raj, who thereafter continued to investigate the case. It has been

argued that the Investigating Officer himself being the complainant renders

. According to

learned counsel, the investigation conducted by the complainant himself

Learned counsel has next contended that the alleged recovery

anipat, which is admittedly a public

and officials of the Transport

Department. Despite the availability of several independent persons, no

effort was made by the investigating agency to associate any independent

witness with the search and recovery proceedings. It is argued that the

to join independent witnesses, without any plausible explanation,

assumes considerable significance in the facts of the present case and creates

a serious doubt about the fairness and transparency of the alleged recovery.

entire recovery has been falsely planted

CRA-S-2489

upon the appellant after preparing the necessary documents at the police

station.

8.4.

eight days in sending

Learned counsel submits that the prosecution has failed to furnish any

satisfactory explanation for such delay. In the absence of any evidence

regarding the safe custody of the sample during the intervening period, the

possibility of tampering w

8.5.

been complete non

of the NDPS Act. Referring to memo Ex. PE, it is submitted that the

appellant was me

Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. However, he was never informed that he

possessed a legal right to demand that the search be conducted before such

an officer. According to learned counsel, the c

legal right is mandatory and not a mere formality. Since the appellant was

not apprised of his statutory right in the manner contemplated by law, the

entire search and recovery stand vitiated. It is, therefore, prayed that the

conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court be set aside and

the appellant be acquitted of the charges.

9.

prosecution witnesses have deposed consistently regarding recovery of

charas from the possession of appellant

permit. Learned State counsel

in the statements

2489-SB-2004 (O&M)

-6-

upon the appellant after preparing the necessary documents at the police

It has further been argued that there is an unex

eight days in sending the sample parcel to the Forensic Science L

Learned counsel submits that the prosecution has failed to furnish any

satisfactory explanation for such delay. In the absence of any evidence

regarding the safe custody of the sample during the intervening period, the

possibility of tampering with the sample cannot be ruled out

Lastly, learned counsel has vehemently argued that there has

been complete non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 50

of the NDPS Act. Referring to memo Ex. PE, it is submitted that the

appellant was merely informed that he could be searched in the presence of a

Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. However, he was never informed that he

possessed a legal right to demand that the search be conducted before such

an officer. According to learned counsel, the c

legal right is mandatory and not a mere formality. Since the appellant was

not apprised of his statutory right in the manner contemplated by law, the

entire search and recovery stand vitiated. It is, therefore, prayed that the

conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court be set aside and

the appellant be acquitted of the charges.

Per contra, learned State counsel

prosecution witnesses have deposed consistently regarding recovery of

charas from the possession of appellant-accused, without any licence or

Learned State counsel further argued that the alleged contradictions

in the statements of the prosecution witnesses

upon the appellant after preparing the necessary documents at the police

It has further been argued that there is an unexplained delay of

the sample parcel to the Forensic Science Laboratory.

Learned counsel submits that the prosecution has failed to furnish any

satisfactory explanation for such delay. In the absence of any evidence

regarding the safe custody of the sample during the intervening period, the

the sample cannot be ruled out.

Lastly, learned counsel has vehemently argued that there has

compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 50

of the NDPS Act. Referring to memo Ex. PE, it is submitted that the

rely informed that he could be searched in the presence of a

Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. However, he was never informed that he

possessed a legal right to demand that the search be conducted before such

an officer. According to learned counsel, the communication of this valuable

legal right is mandatory and not a mere formality. Since the appellant was

not apprised of his statutory right in the manner contemplated by law, the

entire search and recovery stand vitiated. It is, therefore, prayed that the

conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court be set aside and

State counsel has argued that the material

prosecution witnesses have deposed consistently regarding recovery of

accused, without any licence or

further argued that the alleged contradictions

witnesses are minor in nature and do not

upon the appellant after preparing the necessary documents at the police

plained delay of

aboratory.

Learned counsel submits that the prosecution has failed to furnish any

satisfactory explanation for such delay. In the absence of any evidence

regarding the safe custody of the sample during the intervening period, the

Lastly, learned counsel has vehemently argued that there has

compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 50

of the NDPS Act. Referring to memo Ex. PE, it is submitted that the

rely informed that he could be searched in the presence of a

Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. However, he was never informed that he

possessed a legal right to demand that the search be conducted before such

ommunication of this valuable

legal right is mandatory and not a mere formality. Since the appellant was

not apprised of his statutory right in the manner contemplated by law, the

entire search and recovery stand vitiated. It is, therefore, prayed that the

conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court be set aside and

that the material

prosecution witnesses have deposed consistently regarding recovery of

accused, without any licence or

further argued that the alleged contradictions

minor in nature and do not

CRA-S-2489

affect the case of the prosecution at all.

that though appellant was apprehended from a public place but

and recovery

State counsel

witnesses from the public but no one came forward to join the police party.

Learned State counsel

of independent witness, prosecution case cannot be doubted, which

otherwise stands proved.

of 8 days in sending the sample to the FSL

by the prosecution that

FSL and was

i.e. the FSL report.

of the NDPS Act is not applicable in the present case as the recovery was

effected from the bag which the accused was

Thus, learned State counsel

by the Learned Special Judge be upheld.

10.  

through the record with their able assistance.

11.  

the appellant in the statements of PW’s Sant Raj, Dhan Raj and DSP Rattan 

Singh are concerned, suffice it to say that same are minor discrepancies. The 

material fact is that the appellant was apprehended from bus stand, Panipat 

on the basis of suspicion

kg charas from his conscious possession, without any licence or permit

conducted  in  the  office  of  DSP  Rattan  Singh  in  his presence

2489-SB-2004 (O&M)

-7-

ffect the case of the prosecution at all. Learned State counsel

that though appellant was apprehended from a public place but

recovery of contraband was effected in

State counsel further argued that investigating offi

from the public but no one came forward to join the police party.

Learned State counsel further argued that merely on account of non joining

of independent witness, prosecution case cannot be doubted, which

otherwise stands proved. Learned State counsel

in sending the sample to the FSL is

prosecution that the sample remained

was not tampered with at any stage.

FSL report. Lastly, learned State counsel

of the NDPS Act is not applicable in the present case as the recovery was

om the bag which the accused was

learned State counsel prayed that the judgment of conviction passed

by the Learned Special Judge be upheld.

I  have heard  learned  counsel  for  the  parties  and  have  gone 

through the record with their able assistance.

So far as discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel f

the appellant in the statements of PW’s Sant Raj, Dhan Raj and DSP Rattan 

Singh are concerned, suffice it to say that same are minor discrepancies. The 

material fact is that the appellant was apprehended from bus stand, Panipat 

on the basis of suspicion. The search of his bag

kg charas from his conscious possession, without any licence or permit

conducted  in  the  office  of  DSP  Rattan  Singh  in  his presence

Learned State counsel further argued

that though appellant was apprehended from a public place but the search

of contraband was effected in the office of the DSP. Learned

further argued that investigating officer tried to join the

from the public but no one came forward to join the police party.

further argued that merely on account of non joining

of independent witness, prosecution case cannot be doubted, which

Learned State counsel further argued that the delay

is not fatal as it has been proved

intact till it reached the office of

. The same is fortified by Ex.PH

learned State counsel submitted that Section 50

of the NDPS Act is not applicable in the present case as the recovery was

om the bag which the accused was carrying on his left shoulder.

prayed that the judgment of conviction passed

heard  learned  counsel  for  the  parties  and  have  gone 

So far as discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel for 

the appellant in the statements of PW’s Sant Raj, Dhan Raj and DSP Rattan 

Singh are concerned, suffice it to say that same are minor discrepancies. The 

material fact is that the appellant was apprehended from bus stand, Panipat 

search of his bag which led to recovery of 1.5 

kg charas from his conscious possession, without any licence or permit was 

conducted  in  the  office  of  DSP  Rattan  Singh  in  his presence. The 

further argued

the search

Learned

er tried to join the

from the public but no one came forward to join the police party.

further argued that merely on account of non joining

of independent witness, prosecution case cannot be doubted, which

further argued that the delay

it has been proved

till it reached the office of

PH

submitted that Section 50

of the NDPS Act is not applicable in the present case as the recovery was

carrying on his left shoulder.

prayed that the judgment of conviction passed

heard  learned  counsel  for  the  parties  and  have  gone 

or 

the appellant in the statements of PW’s Sant Raj, Dhan Raj and DSP Rattan 

Singh are concerned, suffice it to say that same are minor discrepancies. The 

material fact is that the appellant was apprehended from bus stand, Panipat 

recovery of 1.5 

was 

The 

CRA-S-2489

discrepancies about the weights used for weighing the contraband, number 

of  seals  affixed  on  the  parcels,  time  of  production  of  accused  and  case 

property  before  SHO 

counsel for the appellant are 

the prosecution 

of the prosecution 

after  more  than  five  years 

prosecution  witnesses 

material particulars

12.

regarding non joining

that people are

reasons. PW

independent witness but all expressed their helplessness. It is now well

settled that evidence of a witness cannot be rejected

happens to be an official witness. In the present case, nothing could be

elucidated from the cross examinations of PW’s Sant Raj, Dhan Raj, DSP

Rattan Singh and DSP Samundar Singh

regard to recovery of

their statements are partisan in nature or that they had any motive to plant a

false recovery upon the appellant. In these circumstances, this Court is of

considered opinion, that testimonies of officia

and the same are held to be reliable.

2489-SB-2004 (O&M)

-8-

discrepancies about the weights used for weighing the contraband, number 

of  seals  affixed  on  the  parcels,  time  of  production  of  accused  and  case 

property  before  SHO and  other  discrepancies  pointed  out  by  the  learned 

counsel for the appellant are not material and the same do not go to ro

prosecution case. Such type of discrepancies do occur in the statements 

of the prosecution witnesses more so when the 

after  more  than  five  years from  the  date 

prosecution  witnesses in  the  present  case has  remained  consistent  on  all 

material particulars.

So far as the contention of the learned counsel for

regarding non joining of independent witness is concerned, it

that people are often hesitant in joining police investigation for variety of

reasons. PW-7 ASI Sant Raj has clearly stated that he tried to join

independent witness but all expressed their helplessness. It is now well

settled that evidence of a witness cannot be rejected

happens to be an official witness. In the present case, nothing could be

elucidated from the cross examinations of PW’s Sant Raj, Dhan Raj, DSP

Rattan Singh and DSP Samundar Singh, so as to raise any dispute

regard to recovery of contraband from the possession

their statements are partisan in nature or that they had any motive to plant a

false recovery upon the appellant. In these circumstances, this Court is of

considered opinion, that testimonies of officia

and the same are held to be reliable. In Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi

discrepancies about the weights used for weighing the contraband, number 

of  seals  affixed  on  the  parcels,  time  of  production  of  accused  and  case 

and  other  discrepancies  pointed  out  by  the  learned 

and the same do not go to root of 

. Such type of discrepancies do occur in the statements 

when the witnesses are being examined 

from  the  date of  recovery.  The  testimony of 

has  remained  consistent  on  all 

learned counsel for the appellant

of independent witness is concerned, it is observed

often hesitant in joining police investigation for variety of

7 ASI Sant Raj has clearly stated that he tried to join

independent witness but all expressed their helplessness. It is now well

settled that evidence of a witness cannot be rejected merely because he

happens to be an official witness. In the present case, nothing could be

elucidated from the cross examinations of PW’s Sant Raj, Dhan Raj, DSP

, so as to raise any dispute with

possession of the appellant or that

their statements are partisan in nature or that they had any motive to plant a

false recovery upon the appellant. In these circumstances, this Court is of

considered opinion, that testimonies of official witnesses inspire confidence

Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi

discrepancies about the weights used for weighing the contraband, number 

of  seals  affixed  on  the  parcels,  time  of  production  of  accused  and  case 

and  other  discrepancies  pointed  out  by  the  learned 

ot of 

. Such type of discrepancies do occur in the statements 

are being examined 

of 

has  remained  consistent  on  all 

the appellant

is observed

often hesitant in joining police investigation for variety of

7 ASI Sant Raj has clearly stated that he tried to join

independent witness but all expressed their helplessness. It is now well

merely because he

happens to be an official witness. In the present case, nothing could be

elucidated from the cross examinations of PW’s Sant Raj, Dhan Raj, DSP

with

of the appellant or that

their statements are partisan in nature or that they had any motive to plant a

false recovery upon the appellant. In these circumstances, this Court is of

l witnesses inspire confidence

Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi

CRA-S-2489

Administration), AIR 2003 SC 1311

as under:

principle of law that without corroboration by independent

presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in

favour of police personnel as of ot

proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without

12.1.

Reports 736

recording the conviction by relying upon the statements of police officers

and that testimony of a witness is not to be doubted or discarded mere

the ground that he happens to be an official witness."

12.2.

(Criminal) 946

absolute rule that police officers cannot be cited as a w

depositions should be treated with suspect. Court cannot start with the

presumption that police records are untrustworthy."

12.3.

Punjab, (2013)(4) RCR (Criminal) 320

2489-SB-2004 (O&M)

-9-

Administration), AIR 2003 SC 1311, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held

“The testimony of police personnel should be treated in the

same manner as testimony of any other witness and there is no

principle of law that without corroboration by independent

witnesses their testimony cannot be relied upon. The

presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in

favour of police personnel as of ot

proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without

good grounds. It will all depends upon the facts and

circumstances of each case and no principle of general

application can be laid down.”

In State of Punjab Vs. Balbir Singh, 1994(1) Recent Criminal

the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, "

recording the conviction by relying upon the statements of police officers

and that testimony of a witness is not to be doubted or discarded mere

the ground that he happens to be an official witness."

In Ram Sarup Vs. State (Govt. of NCR Delhi) 2013(3) RCR

(Criminal) 946, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that,

absolute rule that police officers cannot be cited as a w

depositions should be treated with suspect. Court cannot start with the

presumption that police records are untrustworthy."

A Division Bench of this Court in

Punjab, (2013)(4) RCR (Criminal) 320, has observed t

, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held

“The testimony of police personnel should be treated in the

as testimony of any other witness and there is no

principle of law that without corroboration by independent

witnesses their testimony cannot be relied upon. The

presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in

favour of police personnel as of other persons and it is not a

proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without

good grounds. It will all depends upon the facts and

circumstances of each case and no principle of general

Balbir Singh, 1994(1) Recent Criminal

the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, "there is no bar in

recording the conviction by relying upon the statements of police officers

and that testimony of a witness is not to be doubted or discarded merely on

the ground that he happens to be an official witness."

Ram Sarup Vs. State (Govt. of NCR Delhi) 2013(3) RCR

, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that, "there is no

absolute rule that police officers cannot be cited as a witness and their

depositions should be treated with suspect. Court cannot start with the

presumption that police records are untrustworthy."

A Division Bench of this Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of

, has observed that the testimony of

, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held

“The testimony of police personnel should be treated in the

as testimony of any other witness and there is no

principle of law that without corroboration by independent

witnesses their testimony cannot be relied upon. The

presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in

her persons and it is not a

proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without

good grounds. It will all depends upon the facts and

circumstances of each case and no principle of general

Balbir Singh, 1994(1) Recent Criminal

there is no bar in

recording the conviction by relying upon the statements of police officers

ly on

Ram Sarup Vs. State (Govt. of NCR Delhi) 2013(3) RCR

"there is no

itness and their

depositions should be treated with suspect. Court cannot start with the

Ramesh Kumar v. State of

hat the testimony of

CRA-S-2489

official witnesses cannot be discarded until it is proved that they have any

animus or hostility against the accused for his false implication. While

discussing the question of non

observed that they are averse to join the police and depose in favour of

prosecution as they are afraid of the fact that joining the police and deposing

in favour of the prosecution may expose them to serious consequences.

12.4.

(Criminal) 707

carry the same evidentiary value as that of any other witness and their

statements cannot be discarded simply on account of their official

designation.

13.

for the appellant is that there is delay of eight days in sending the sample

parcel to the FSL, which casts a serious doubt on the prosecution story. In

the present case, the recovery of contraband was effected fr

on 07.04.1998 and on the same day it was deposited with MHC Naresh

Kumar who kept the same in police malkhana in safe custody. On

15.04.1998, MHC handed over the sample parcel to HC Raghbir Singh, who

deposited the same in the office of FSL,

these witnesses stepped into the witness box as PW4 and PW5 respectively.

In their respective affidavits Ex.PC and Ex.PD they have categorically stated

that so long the parcel remained in their possession, neither they tampe

with the same nor allowed anybody to tamper

FSL report Ex.PH reveals that when the sample parcel was received in the

2489-SB-2004 (O&M)

-10-

official witnesses cannot be discarded until it is proved that they have any

animus or hostility against the accused for his false implication. While

discussing the question of non-joining of the independent witnesses, it was

that they are averse to join the police and depose in favour of

prosecution as they are afraid of the fact that joining the police and deposing

in favour of the prosecution may expose them to serious consequences.

In Krishan Kumar v. State of Punjab, 201

(Criminal) 707, it was observed that testimonies of the official witnesses

carry the same evidentiary value as that of any other witness and their

statements cannot be discarded simply on account of their official

The next limb of the arguments raised by the learned counsel

for the appellant is that there is delay of eight days in sending the sample

parcel to the FSL, which casts a serious doubt on the prosecution story. In

the present case, the recovery of contraband was effected fr

on 07.04.1998 and on the same day it was deposited with MHC Naresh

Kumar who kept the same in police malkhana in safe custody. On

15.04.1998, MHC handed over the sample parcel to HC Raghbir Singh, who

deposited the same in the office of FSL, Madhuban on the same day. Both

these witnesses stepped into the witness box as PW4 and PW5 respectively.

In their respective affidavits Ex.PC and Ex.PD they have categorically stated

that so long the parcel remained in their possession, neither they tampe

with the same nor allowed anybody to tamper

FSL report Ex.PH reveals that when the sample parcel was received in the

official witnesses cannot be discarded until it is proved that they have any

animus or hostility against the accused for his false implication. While

joining of the independent witnesses, it was

that they are averse to join the police and depose in favour of

prosecution as they are afraid of the fact that joining the police and deposing

in favour of the prosecution may expose them to serious consequences.

Krishan Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2016 (2) RCR

, it was observed that testimonies of the official witnesses

carry the same evidentiary value as that of any other witness and their

statements cannot be discarded simply on account of their official

he arguments raised by the learned counsel

for the appellant is that there is delay of eight days in sending the sample

parcel to the FSL, which casts a serious doubt on the prosecution story. In

the present case, the recovery of contraband was effected from the accused

on 07.04.1998 and on the same day it was deposited with MHC Naresh

Kumar who kept the same in police malkhana in safe custody. On

15.04.1998, MHC handed over the sample parcel to HC Raghbir Singh, who

Madhuban on the same day. Both

these witnesses stepped into the witness box as PW4 and PW5 respectively.

In their respective affidavits Ex.PC and Ex.PD they have categorically stated

that so long the parcel remained in their possession, neither they tampered

with the same nor allowed anybody to tamper with the parcel. Perusal of

FSL report Ex.PH reveals that when the sample parcel was received in the

official witnesses cannot be discarded until it is proved that they have any

animus or hostility against the accused for his false implication. While

joining of the independent witnesses, it was

that they are averse to join the police and depose in favour of

prosecution as they are afraid of the fact that joining the police and deposing

6 (2) RCR

, it was observed that testimonies of the official witnesses

carry the same evidentiary value as that of any other witness and their

statements cannot be discarded simply on account of their official

he arguments raised by the learned counsel

for the appellant is that there is delay of eight days in sending the sample

parcel to the FSL, which casts a serious doubt on the prosecution story. In

om the accused

on 07.04.1998 and on the same day it was deposited with MHC Naresh

Kumar who kept the same in police malkhana in safe custody. On

15.04.1998, MHC handed over the sample parcel to HC Raghbir Singh, who

Madhuban on the same day. Both

these witnesses stepped into the witness box as PW4 and PW5 respectively.

In their respective affidavits Ex.PC and Ex.PD they have categorically stated

red

the parcel. Perusal of

FSL report Ex.PH reveals that when the sample parcel was received in the

CRA-S-2489

laboratory, seals were found intact and tallied with the specimen seal. Thus,

delay of eight days in sendin

case of prosecution

Punjab, 2008 (4) RCR (Criminal) 97

evidence that samples were tampered with or any prejudice was cause

the accused then even 40 days delay in sending the sample to chemical

examiner was held not fatal to the prosecution case

sending the sample to the office o

Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab 2015 (4) RCR (Criminal) 25,

was held that when the samples were not sent to the office of Chemical

Examiner within 72 hours, the prosecution and conviction cannot be vitiat

on that ground since there was no specific provision in the Act in that regard

and the instructions/standing orders in that respect were only the guidelines

to regulate and control their internal working of Narcotic Control Bureau.

Therefore, the delay

Chemical Examiner, Punjab, Chandigarh

going to be caused to the appellant/accused.

14.

appellant that ASI Sant R

investigate the case is concerned, the same cannot be accepted in view of the

settled legal position. The

in Mukesh Singh v. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi) 202

has held as under:

“12. From the above discussion and for the reasons stated above,

and answer the reference as under:

2489-SB-2004 (O&M)

-11-

laboratory, seals were found intact and tallied with the specimen seal. Thus,

delay of eight days in sending the sample is immaterial and not fatal to the

case of prosecution. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Punjab, 2008 (4) RCR (Criminal) 97, has held that when there is

evidence that samples were tampered with or any prejudice was cause

the accused then even 40 days delay in sending the sample to chemical

examiner was held not fatal to the prosecution case

sending the sample to the office of Chemical Examiner was

Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab 2015 (4) RCR (Criminal) 25,

that when the samples were not sent to the office of Chemical

Examiner within 72 hours, the prosecution and conviction cannot be vitiat

on that ground since there was no specific provision in the Act in that regard

and the instructions/standing orders in that respect were only the guidelines

to regulate and control their internal working of Narcotic Control Bureau.

Therefore, the delay of few days in sending the sample to the office of

Chemical Examiner, Punjab, Chandigarh was

going to be caused to the appellant/accused.

As regards to the contention of the learned counsel for the

appellant that ASI Sant Raj being the complainant

investigate the case is concerned, the same cannot be accepted in view of the

settled legal position. The Constitution Bench

Mukesh Singh v. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi) 202

has held as under:

12. From the above discussion and for the reasons stated above,

answer the reference as under: 

laboratory, seals were found intact and tallied with the specimen seal. Thus,

g the sample is immaterial and not fatal to the

. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hardip Singh v. State of

has held that when there is no

evidence that samples were tampered with or any prejudice was caused to

the accused then even 40 days delay in sending the sample to chemical

examiner was held not fatal to the prosecution case. The aspect of delay in

f Chemical Examiner was also discussed in

Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab 2015 (4) RCR (Criminal) 25, wherein it

that when the samples were not sent to the office of Chemical

Examiner within 72 hours, the prosecution and conviction cannot be vitiated

on that ground since there was no specific provision in the Act in that regard

and the instructions/standing orders in that respect were only the guidelines

to regulate and control their internal working of Narcotic Control Bureau.

of few days in sending the sample to the office of

was immaterial and no prejudice is

As regards to the contention of the learned counsel for the

complainant, was not competent to

investigate the case is concerned, the same cannot be accepted in view of the

Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

Mukesh Singh v. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi) 2020(10) SCC 120,

12. From the above discussion and for the reasons stated above, we conclude 

laboratory, seals were found intact and tallied with the specimen seal. Thus,

g the sample is immaterial and not fatal to the

Hardip Singh v. State of

no

d to

the accused then even 40 days delay in sending the sample to chemical

. The aspect of delay in

discussed in

wherein it

that when the samples were not sent to the office of Chemical

ed

on that ground since there was no specific provision in the Act in that regard

and the instructions/standing orders in that respect were only the guidelines

to regulate and control their internal working of Narcotic Control Bureau.

of few days in sending the sample to the office of

immaterial and no prejudice is

As regards to the contention of the learned counsel for the

was not competent to

investigate the case is concerned, the same cannot be accepted in view of the

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

,

we conclude 

CRA-S-2489

I.  

Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1976) 1 SCC 15

Haryana (1996) 11 SCC 709

Tamil Nadu v. Rajangam (2010) 15 SCC 369

accused  by  this  Court  on  the  ground  that  as  the  informant  and  the 

investigator was the same, it has 

entitled to acquittal are to be treated to be confined to their own facts. It 

cannot be said that in the aforesaid decisions, this Court laid down any 

general  proposition  of  law  that  in  each  and  every  case  where  the 

informant is the investigator there is a bias caused to the accused and 

the  entire  prosecution  case  is  to  be  disbelieved  and  the  accused  is 

entitled to acquittal;

II.  In a case where the informant himself is the investigator, by that 

itself cannot be said t

bias or the like factor. The question of bias or prejudice would depend 

upon  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  each  case.  Therefore, merely 

because the informant is the investigator, by that itself the invest

would not suffer the vice of unfairness or bias and therefore on the sole 

ground that informant is the investigator, the accused is not entitled to 

acquittal.  The  matter  has  to  be  decided  on  a  case  to case  basis.  A 

contrary  decision  of  this  Court  i

Punjab (2018) 17 SCC 627

view that the informant cannot be the investigator and in such a case the 

accused is entitled to acquittal are not good law and they are specifically 

overruled.”

2489-SB-2004 (O&M)

-12-

That  the  observations  of  this  Court  in  the  cases  of

Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1976) 1 SCC 15

Haryana (1996) 11 SCC 709; and State by Inspector of Police, NIB, 

Tamil Nadu v. Rajangam (2010) 15 SCC 369

accused  by  this  Court  on  the  ground  that  as  the  informant  and  the 

investigator was the same, it has vitiated the trial and the accused is 

entitled to acquittal are to be treated to be confined to their own facts. It 

cannot be said that in the aforesaid decisions, this Court laid down any 

general  proposition  of  law  that  in  each  and  every  case  where  the 

formant is the investigator there is a bias caused to the accused and 

the  entire  prosecution  case  is  to  be  disbelieved  and  the  accused  is 

entitled to acquittal; 

In a case where the informant himself is the investigator, by that 

itself cannot be said that the investigation is vitiated on the ground of 

bias or the like factor. The question of bias or prejudice would depend 

upon  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  each  case.  Therefore, merely 

because the informant is the investigator, by that itself the invest

would not suffer the vice of unfairness or bias and therefore on the sole 

ground that informant is the investigator, the accused is not entitled to 

acquittal.  The  matter  has  to  be  decided  on  a  case  to case  basis.  A 

contrary  decision  of  this  Court  in  the  case  of

Punjab (2018) 17 SCC 627 and any other decision taking a contrary 

view that the informant cannot be the investigator and in such a case the 

accused is entitled to acquittal are not good law and they are specifically 

ruled.” 

That  the  observations  of  this  Court  in  the  cases  of Bhagwan 

Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1976) 1 SCC 15; Megha Singh v. State of 

State by Inspector of Police, NIB, 

Tamil Nadu v. Rajangam (2010) 15 SCC 369 and the acquittal of the 

accused  by  this  Court  on  the  ground  that  as  the  informant  and  the 

vitiated the trial and the accused is 

entitled to acquittal are to be treated to be confined to their own facts. It 

cannot be said that in the aforesaid decisions, this Court laid down any 

general  proposition  of  law  that  in  each  and  every  case  where  the 

formant is the investigator there is a bias caused to the accused and 

the  entire  prosecution  case  is  to  be  disbelieved  and  the  accused  is 

In a case where the informant himself is the investigator, by that 

hat the investigation is vitiated on the ground of 

bias or the like factor. The question of bias or prejudice would depend 

upon  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  each  case.  Therefore, merely 

because the informant is the investigator, by that itself the investigation 

would not suffer the vice of unfairness or bias and therefore on the sole 

ground that informant is the investigator, the accused is not entitled to 

acquittal.  The  matter  has  to  be  decided  on  a  case  to case  basis.  A 

n  the  case  of Mohan  Lal  v.  State  of 

and any other decision taking a contrary 

view that the informant cannot be the investigator and in such a case the 

accused is entitled to acquittal are not good law and they are specifically 

Bhagwan 

Megha Singh v. State of 

State by Inspector of Police, NIB, 

and the acquittal of the 

accused  by  this  Court  on  the  ground  that  as  the  informant  and  the 

vitiated the trial and the accused is 

entitled to acquittal are to be treated to be confined to their own facts. It 

cannot be said that in the aforesaid decisions, this Court laid down any 

general  proposition  of  law  that  in  each  and  every  case  where  the 

formant is the investigator there is a bias caused to the accused and 

the  entire  prosecution  case  is  to  be  disbelieved  and  the  accused  is 

In a case where the informant himself is the investigator, by that 

hat the investigation is vitiated on the ground of 

bias or the like factor. The question of bias or prejudice would depend 

upon  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  each  case.  Therefore, merely 

igation 

would not suffer the vice of unfairness or bias and therefore on the sole 

ground that informant is the investigator, the accused is not entitled to 

acquittal.  The  matter  has  to  be  decided  on  a  case  to case  basis.  A 

Mohan  Lal  v.  State  of 

and any other decision taking a contrary 

view that the informant cannot be the investigator and in such a case the 

accused is entitled to acquittal are not good law and they are specifically 

CRA-S-2489

15.

that the provision of Section 50 of NDPS Act have not been complied with

the prosecution is concerned,

Court in Ajmer Singh v.

746, have held that for search of bag, briefcase, container, etc. carried by

accused person, compliance with Section

Their Lordships have held as under :

provision of Section

2489-SB-2004 (O&M)

-13-

So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant

that the provision of Section 50 of NDPS Act have not been complied with

the prosecution is concerned, the law is well settled

Ajmer Singh v. State of Haryana, (2010) 3 Supreme Court Cases

, have held that for search of bag, briefcase, container, etc. carried by

accused person, compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not required.

dships have held as under :-

"15. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the

provision of Section 50 of the Act would also apply, while

searching the bag, brief case etc., carried by the person

noncompliance would be fatal to the proceedings initiated

under the Act. We find no merit in

counsel. It requires to be noticed that the question of

compliance or non-compliance of Section

is relevant only where search of a person is involved and the

said Section is not applicable nor attracted where no search of

a person is involved. Search and recovery from a bag, brief

case, container, etc., does not

Section 50 of the NDPS Act, because firstly, Section 50

expressly speaks of search of person only. Secondly, the Section

speaks of taking of the person to be searched by the Gazetted

Officer or Magistrate for the purpose of search. Thirdly, this

issue in our considered opinion is

of the observations made by this court in the case of

So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant

that the provision of Section 50 of NDPS Act have not been complied with by

the law is well settled. The Hon'ble Supreme

State of Haryana, (2010) 3 Supreme Court Cases

, have held that for search of bag, briefcase, container, etc. carried by

of the NDPS Act is not required.

"15. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the

of the Act would also apply, while

searching the bag, brief case etc., carried by the person and its

noncompliance would be fatal to the proceedings initiated

We find no merit in the contention of the learned

counsel. It requires to be noticed that the question of

compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS. Act

is relevant only where search of a person is involved and the

said Section is not applicable nor attracted where no search of

a person is involved. Search and recovery from a bag, brief

case, container, etc., does not come within the ambit of

of the NDPS Act, because firstly, Section 50

expressly speaks of search of person only. Secondly, the Section

speaks of taking of the person to be searched by the Gazetted

fficer or Magistrate for the purpose of search. Thirdly, this

in our considered opinion is no more res-integra in view

of the observations made by this court in the case of Madan Lal

So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant

by

he Hon'ble Supreme

State of Haryana, (2010) 3 Supreme Court Cases

, have held that for search of bag, briefcase, container, etc. carried by

of the NDPS Act is not required.

"15. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the

of the Act would also apply, while

and its

noncompliance would be fatal to the proceedings initiated

the contention of the learned

counsel. It requires to be noticed that the question of

of the NDPS. Act

is relevant only where search of a person is involved and the

said Section is not applicable nor attracted where no search of

a person is involved. Search and recovery from a bag, brief

come within the ambit of

of the NDPS Act, because firstly, Section 50

expressly speaks of search of person only. Secondly, the Section

speaks of taking of the person to be searched by the Gazetted

fficer or Magistrate for the purpose of search. Thirdly, this

integra in view

Madan Lal

CRA-S-2489

Ahalawat and as directed by him, the bag carried by accused

2489-SB-2004 (O&M)

-14-

v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2003) 7 SCC 465

has observed:

"16. A bare reading of Section 50 shows that it only

applies in case of personal search of a person. It does not

extend to search of a vehicle or a container or a bag or

premises (see Kalema Tumba v. State of Maharashtra

and Anr. (1999) 8 SCC 257

Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172

Haryana (2001) 3 SCC 28)

implicitly clear that the search has to be in relation to a

person as contrast to search of premises, vehicles, or

articles. This position was settled beyond doubt by the

Constitution Bench in Baldev Singh's case. Above being

the position, the contention regarding noncompliance of

Section 50 of the Act is also without any substance."

16. x x x

17. x x x

18. It appears from the evidence on record that the accused was

confronted by ASI Maya Ram and other police officials on

24.1.1996 and he was informed that he has the right to either

be searched before the gazetted officer or before a Magistrate

and the accused chose the later (

accused was taken to the DSP, Pehowa, Shri Paramjit Singh

Ahalawat and as directed by him, the bag carried by accused

v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2003) 7 SCC 465. The Court

"16. A bare reading of Section 50 shows that it only

applies in case of personal search of a person. It does not

extend to search of a vehicle or a container or a bag or

Kalema Tumba v. State of Maharashtra

and Anr. (1999) 8 SCC 257, State of Punjab v. Baldev

Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 and Gurbax Singh v. State of

Haryana (2001) 3 SCC 28). The language of section is

implicitly clear that the search has to be in relation to a

person as contrast to search of premises, vehicles, or

. This position was settled beyond doubt by the

Constitution Bench in Baldev Singh's case. Above being

the position, the contention regarding noncompliance of

Section 50 of the Act is also without any substance."

evidence on record that the accused was

confronted by ASI Maya Ram and other police officials on

24.1.1996 and he was informed that he has the right to either

be searched before the gazetted officer or before a Magistrate

and the accused chose the later (sic former). Thereafter, the

accused was taken to the DSP, Pehowa, Shri Paramjit Singh

Ahalawat and as directed by him, the bag carried by accused

. The Court

"16. A bare reading of Section 50 shows that it only

applies in case of personal search of a person. It does not

extend to search of a vehicle or a container or a bag or

Kalema Tumba v. State of Maharashtra

State of Punjab v. Baldev

Gurbax Singh v. State of

. The language of section is

implicitly clear that the search has to be in relation to a

person as contrast to search of premises, vehicles, or

. This position was settled beyond doubt by the

Constitution Bench in Baldev Singh's case. Above being

the position, the contention regarding noncompliance of

evidence on record that the accused was

confronted by ASI Maya Ram and other police officials on

24.1.1996 and he was informed that he has the right to either

be searched before the gazetted officer or before a Magistrate

sic former). Thereafter, the

accused was taken to the DSP, Pehowa, Shri Paramjit Singh

Ahalawat and as directed by him, the bag carried by accused

CRA-S-2489

person" as laid down by this Court in the decision mentioned

Act."

16.

Madhya Pradesh

D/d.21.07.2026

peril. [See:

2489-SB-2004 (O&M)

-15-

on his shoulder was searched and the charas was found in that

bag. Thus, applying the interpretation of the w

person" as laid down by this Court in the decision mentioned

above, to facts of present case, it is clear that the compliance of

Section 50 of the Act is not required. Therefore, the search

conducted by the investigation officer and the evid

collected thereby, is not illegal. Consequently,

any merit in the contention of the learned counsel of the

appellant as regards the noncompliance of Section 50 of the

Act."

More recently, in the matter of

Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No(s). 3305

D/d.21.07.2026; the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"12. The next contention of the appellant pertains to the alleged

non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. We find the

same to be devoid of merit. Section 50 of the NDPS Act confers

upon an accused a valuable right to have his personal search

conducted before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, if he so

requires. Such right is sacrosanct and indefeasible which

cannot be disregarded by the prosecution except at its own

peril. [See: State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC

172] The protection under Section 50 is confined to cases where

the recovery is sought to be effected through the personal

search of the accused. It has no appli

on his shoulder was searched and the charas was found in that

bag. Thus, applying the interpretation of the word "search of

person" as laid down by this Court in the decision mentioned

above, to facts of present case, it is clear that the compliance of

Section 50 of the Act is not required. Therefore, the search

conducted by the investigation officer and the evidence

collected thereby, is not illegal. Consequently, we do not find

merit in the contention of the learned counsel of the

appellant as regards the noncompliance of Section 50 of the

in the matter of Mehboob Shah v. State of

Criminal Appeal No(s). 3305-3306 of 2026

the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

12. The next contention of the appellant pertains to the alleged

compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. We find the

devoid of merit. Section 50 of the NDPS Act confers

upon an accused a valuable right to have his personal search

conducted before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, if he so

requires. Such right is sacrosanct and indefeasible which

y the prosecution except at its own

State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC

The protection under Section 50 is confined to cases where

the recovery is sought to be effected through the personal

search of the accused. It has no application where the search is

on his shoulder was searched and the charas was found in that

ord "search of

person" as laid down by this Court in the decision mentioned

above, to facts of present case, it is clear that the compliance of

Section 50 of the Act is not required. Therefore, the search

ence

we do not find

merit in the contention of the learned counsel of the

appellant as regards the noncompliance of Section 50 of the

f

3306 of 2026

12. The next contention of the appellant pertains to the alleged

compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. We find the

devoid of merit. Section 50 of the NDPS Act confers

upon an accused a valuable right to have his personal search

conducted before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, if he so

requires. Such right is sacrosanct and indefeasible which

y the prosecution except at its own

State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC

The protection under Section 50 is confined to cases where

the recovery is sought to be effected through the personal

cation where the search is

CRA-S-2489

17.

the appellant was carrying on his shoulder, so

was not applicable in the present case

the prosecution has gone a step further by serving a written notice under

Section 50 NDPS Act (Ex.PE), despite the fact that the recovery was from a

bag. The appellant exercised his option to be searched before a Gazetted

Officer and, accordingly,

Though Section 50

still the same has been

discussed above

with regard to non compliance of S

any substance.

18.

record, this Court finds that the prosecution h

appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of the official witnesses is

trustworthy, consistent and inspires confidence. Their testimony is duly

corroborated by the documentary evidence and the report of the Forensic

Science Laboratory.

2489-SB-2004 (O&M)

-16-

of an article, such as a bag, container, suitcase or any other

object, which the accused may be carrying

v. Pawan Kumar, (2005) 4 SCC 350

Chadha v. State of H.P., 2023 SCC Online SC 1262

Since the recovery of charas was effected from the bag which

the appellant was carrying on his shoulder, so

was not applicable in the present case. Even otherwise, i

the prosecution has gone a step further by serving a written notice under

Section 50 NDPS Act (Ex.PE), despite the fact that the recovery was from a

bag. The appellant exercised his option to be searched before a Gazetted

Officer and, accordingly, he was searched before

Though Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not applicable in the present case but

the same has been complied with. Thus,

discussed above, the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant

th regard to non compliance of Section 50

any substance.

On a comprehensive appreciation of the entire evidence on

record, this Court finds that the prosecution h

beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of the official witnesses is

trustworthy, consistent and inspires confidence. Their testimony is duly

corroborated by the documentary evidence and the report of the Forensic

ence Laboratory. No material contradiction, omission or discrepancy has

of an article, such as a bag, container, suitcase or any other

object, which the accused may be carrying. [See: State of H.P.

v. Pawan Kumar, (2005) 4 SCC 350 and Ranjan Kumar

Chadha v. State of H.P., 2023 SCC Online SC 1262]."

…..emphasis supplied

Since the recovery of charas was effected from the bag which

the appellant was carrying on his shoulder, so Section 50 of the NDPS Act

Even otherwise, in the present case,

the prosecution has gone a step further by serving a written notice under

Section 50 NDPS Act (Ex.PE), despite the fact that the recovery was from a

bag. The appellant exercised his option to be searched before a Gazetted

earched before PW9 DSP Rattan Singh.

of the NDPS Act is not applicable in the present case but

Thus, in view of the settled law as

the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant

ection 50 of the NDPS Act are without

On a comprehensive appreciation of the entire evidence on

record, this Court finds that the prosecution has proved its case against the

beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of the official witnesses is

trustworthy, consistent and inspires confidence. Their testimony is duly

corroborated by the documentary evidence and the report of the Forensic

No material contradiction, omission or discrepancy has

of an article, such as a bag, container, suitcase or any other

State of H.P.

Ranjan Kumar

Since the recovery of charas was effected from the bag which

Section 50 of the NDPS Act

n the present case,

the prosecution has gone a step further by serving a written notice under

Section 50 NDPS Act (Ex.PE), despite the fact that the recovery was from a

bag. The appellant exercised his option to be searched before a Gazetted

PW9 DSP Rattan Singh.

of the NDPS Act is not applicable in the present case but

as

the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant

without

On a comprehensive appreciation of the entire evidence on

its case against the

beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of the official witnesses is

trustworthy, consistent and inspires confidence. Their testimony is duly

corroborated by the documentary evidence and the report of the Forensic

No material contradiction, omission or discrepancy has

CRA-S-2489

been pointed out which goes to the root of the prosecution case or is

sufficient to discredit the otherwise reliable evidence led by the prosecution.

19.

learned Special Judge are based upon proper appreciation of oral as well as

documentary evidence and do not suffer from any illegality, perversity or

misreading of evidence warranting interference by this Court.

prosecution has successfully established that the appellant was found in

conscious possession of 1.5 kilograms of Charas in contravention of the

provisions of the NDPS Act.

20.

dismissed. The judgment of conv

sentence dated 09.07.2004 passed by the learned Special Judge, Panipat, are

affirmed.

21.

Court forthwith to undergo the remaining part of the

Court shall take appropriate steps to secure his custody in accordance with

law.

22.

disposed of.

27.07.2026

Puneet 

2489-SB-2004 (O&M)

-17-

been pointed out which goes to the root of the prosecution case or is

sufficient to discredit the otherwise reliable evidence led by the prosecution.

Thus, this Court concludes tha

learned Special Judge are based upon proper appreciation of oral as well as

documentary evidence and do not suffer from any illegality, perversity or

misreading of evidence warranting interference by this Court.

on has successfully established that the appellant was found in

conscious possession of 1.5 kilograms of Charas in contravention of the

provisions of the NDPS Act.

Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby

dismissed. The judgment of conviction dated 08.07.2004 and the order of

sentence dated 09.07.2004 passed by the learned Special Judge, Panipat, are

The appellant, if on bail, shall surrender before the learned trial

Court forthwith to undergo the remaining part of the

Court shall take appropriate steps to secure his custody in accordance with

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand

(RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL)

Whether speaking/reasoned

Whether reportable

been pointed out which goes to the root of the prosecution case or is

sufficient to discredit the otherwise reliable evidence led by the prosecution.

Thus, this Court concludes that the findings recorded by the

learned Special Judge are based upon proper appreciation of oral as well as

documentary evidence and do not suffer from any illegality, perversity or

misreading of evidence warranting interference by this Court. The

on has successfully established that the appellant was found in

conscious possession of 1.5 kilograms of Charas in contravention of the

Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby

iction dated 08.07.2004 and the order of

sentence dated 09.07.2004 passed by the learned Special Judge, Panipat, are

The appellant, if on bail, shall surrender before the learned trial

Court forthwith to undergo the remaining part of the sentence. The trial

Court shall take appropriate steps to secure his custody in accordance with

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand

(RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL)

JUDGE

: Yes

: Yes

been pointed out which goes to the root of the prosecution case or is

he findings recorded by the

learned Special Judge are based upon proper appreciation of oral as well as

documentary evidence and do not suffer from any illegality, perversity or

The

on has successfully established that the appellant was found in

conscious possession of 1.5 kilograms of Charas in contravention of the

Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby

iction dated 08.07.2004 and the order of

sentence dated 09.07.2004 passed by the learned Special Judge, Panipat, are

The appellant, if on bail, shall surrender before the learned trial

sentence. The trial

Court shall take appropriate steps to secure his custody in accordance with

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand