CRA-S-3577-2023 and

CRA-S-3414-2023(O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CRA-S-3577-2023

Varinder Thakur alias Vicky …...Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab      …... Respondent

CRA-S-3414-2023(O&M)

Vikram Singh alias Vicky …...Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab      …... Respondent

1. Date when Order was reserved 01.05.2026

2. Pronouncement of Order 12.05.2026

3. Date of uploading Order 12.05.2026

4. Whether operative part or full Order is

pronounced

Full

5. Delay, if any, in pronouncing of full 

order, and reasons thereof

Not Applicable

CORAM:  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Present: Mr.  Jashandeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the appellant 

(in CRA-S-3577-2023).

Mr. Narinder Singh Dadwal, Advocacte for the appellant. 

(in CRA-S-3414-2023).

Mr. Jasdeep Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab. 

  ****

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

1. Aforesaid two appeals have been filed by the convicts,

Varinder Thakur @ Vicky and his co-convict Vikram Singh @ Vicky,

against a common judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

02.11.2023, arising out of FIR No. 106 dated 15.10.2019, registered

CRA-S-3577-2023 and

CRA-S-3414-2023(O&M) 2

under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, read with Section 473

of the IPC. The details of the order of sentence are as follows: 

Sr. No. Name of Convict(s) Under Section Sentence

1.Varinder Thakur alias Vicky 21   of   NDPS

Act

To   undergo   rigorous

imprisonment   for   10

years and to pay fine of

Rs.1,00,000/-   (Rupees

one   lac   only)   and   in

default of payment of

fine,   he   will   further

undergo   rigorous

imprisonment   for   six

months 

29   of   NDPS

Act

To   undergo   rigorous

imprisonment   for   10

years and to pay fine of

Rs.1,00,000/-   (Rupees

one   lac   only)   and   in

default of payment of

fine,   he   will   further

undergo   rigorous

imprisonment   for   six

months

473 IPC To   undergo   rigorous

imprisonment   for   02

years and to pay a fine

of   Rs.3,000/-   and   in

default of payment of

fine,   he   will   further

undergo   rigorous

imprisonment for three

months.

2. Vikram Singh @ Vicky 21   of   NDPS

Act

To   undergo   rigorous

imprisonment   for   10

years and to pay fine of

Rs.1,00,000/-   (Rupees

one   lac   only)   and   in

default of payment of

fine,   he   will   further

undergo   rigorous

imprisonment   for   six

months 

29   of   NDPS

Act

To   undergo   rigorous

imprisonment   for   10

years and to pay fine of

Rs.1,00,000/-   (Rupees

one   lac   only)   and   in

CRA-S-3577-2023 and

CRA-S-3414-2023(O&M) 3

default of payment of

fine,   he   will   further

undergo   rigorous

imprisonment   for   six

months

473 IPC To   undergo   rigorous

imprisonment   for   02

years and to pay a fine

of   Rs.3,000/-   and   in

default of payment of

fine,   he   will   further

undergo   rigorous

imprisonment for three

months.

2. On 15.10.2019, SI Gurcharan Singh, along with other police

officials, was present in Beant Colony, behind the Blind School on

Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana, in connection with the search of drug

smugglers. On receipt of a telephonic message from a secret informer,

ASI Mohd. Sadiq conveyed the information orally to SI Gurcharan Singh

and thereafter got his statement recorded to the effect that Varinder

Thakur @ Vicky, resident of Village Bamian Kalan, Police Station

Jamalpur, and presently residing as a tenant in Street No. 1, Beant

Colony,   33   Feet   Road,   Mundian   Kalan,   Police   Station  Jamalpur,

Ludhiana, was involved in multiple cases of heroin smuggling and had

also been declared a proclaimed offender in such cases. It was further

disclosed that he, along with his associate Vikram Singh @ Vicky, had

been engaged in the illicit trade of heroin for some time and that both

were likely to leave shortly on a Pulsar motorcycle bearing registration

No. PB-10-FZ-1626 from the rented house of Varinder Thakur @ Vicky

to supply heroin to their customers. It was further informed that, if naka

CRA-S-3577-2023 and

CRA-S-3414-2023(O&M) 4

bandi was laid near the said house, both could be apprehended along with

the motorcycle and heroin.

Finding the information to be credible, SI Gurcharan Singh

sent a ruqa to Police Station STF, Mohali, through C-Vishal Kumar for

registration of a case under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act. 

3. Subsequently, SI Gurcharan Singh, along with the remaining

police officials, reached Street No.1, Ludhiana near the rented house of

Varinder Thakur and his co-accused Vikram Singh. At about 08:15 PM,

both the accused came out of the rented house; Varinder Thakur @ Vicky

was carrying a bag, and Vikram Singh @ Vicky accompanied him. They

started the motorcycle bearing registration No. PB-10-FZ-1626 parked in

front of the house, whereupon they were intercepted by the police party.

4. After disclosing their identities, accused were informed of

their legal right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a

Magistrate. Upon their consent, as recorded in consent memos, DSP

Pawanjit was informed telephonically by SI Gurcharan Singh and he

reached the spot at about 09:15 PM. The accused were again apprised of

their legal rights, and they reposed confidence in the Gazetted Officer

present.

Upon search, a black polythene envelope recovered from the

bag of Varinder Thakur @ Vicky was found to contain a small electronic

weighing scale and 70 empty pouches. From another polythene envelope,

heroin weighing 455 grams was recovered. The recovery proceedings

were conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedure; the case

CRA-S-3577-2023 and

CRA-S-3414-2023(O&M) 5

property was sealed, and parcels were prepared by the Investigating

Officer.

The Investigating Officer thereafter brought the accused and

the case property to Police Station Jamalpur and produced them before SI

Varinder Pal Singh, the officiating SHO, who, after verifying the facts,

affixed his seal bearing impression “VS” and deposited the case property

with the MHC of the police station.

On   the   following   day,   i.e.,   16.10.2019,   accused   were

formally arrested, and the case property was produced before the learned

Judicial   Magistrate   First   Class   for   inventory   proceedings.   Learned

Magistrate drew two samples of 10 grams each from the recovered heroin

and sealed them with seal impression “ASM”. The bulk parcel containing

435   grams   of   heroin   was   also   sealed   separately.   The  inventory

proceedings were duly photographed.

5. During investigation, accused Varinder Thakur @ Vicky

disclosed that the correct registration number of the motorcycle was PB-

10-FJ-1626.   It   was   further   revealed   that   the   said   motorcycle   was

originally registered in the name of Jagtar Singh, who stated that he had

sold it to Kuldeep Singh. It also emerged that Varinder Thakur @ Vicky

was the brother-in-law of Kuldeep Singh, who had given the motorcycle

to him. However, no involvement of Jagtar Singh or Kuldeep Singh was

found in the recovery of heroin. Upon receipt of the report of the

Chemical Examiner, challan was presented under Sections 21 and 29 of

the NDPS Act and Section 473 IPC.

CRA-S-3577-2023 and

CRA-S-3414-2023(O&M) 6

6. Vide order dated 18.07.2022, charges were framed against

the accused under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 473

read with Section 34 IPC. During the trial, the prosecution examined

eight witnesses, the gist whereof is as follows:

PW1   –   ASI   Mohd.   Sadiq:  Deposed   regarding   receipt   of   secret

information   about  the   accused   dealing   in   heroin   and  their   plan  to

transport the same on a motorcycle. He also proved the sending of ruqa

and registration of the FIR.

PW2 – ASI Manish Riat: A member of the investigation team, who

deposed regarding the recovery proceedings, preparation of site plan,

arrest memos, and submission of report under Section 57 of the NDPS

Act.

PW3 – L/SC Jasvir Kaur: Deposed that on 22.10.2019, she deposited a

parcel containing 10 grams of heroin, sealed with seal “ASM,” along

with sample seal chit and Form M-29, at the Regional Forensic Science

Laboratory, Ludhiana.

PW4 – Kiranjit Kaur (RTA Official): Proved the ownership records of

motorcycles bearing registration Nos. PB-10-FZ-1626 and PB-10-FJ-

1626.

PW5 – SI Varinderpal Singh:  Before whom the case property was

produced by the Investigating Officer on 16.10.2019.

PW6   –   DSP  Pawanjit:  Corroborated   the   prosecution   version   and

supported the testimony of the Investigating Officer.

CRA-S-3577-2023 and

CRA-S-3414-2023(O&M) 7

PW7 – SI Gurcharan Singh (Investigating Officer):  Reiterated the

facts of the case and detailed the investigation conducted by him. He also

stated that the representative sample parcel kept in the judicial malkhana

was stolen along with other parcels, for which a separate FIR was

registered. Consequently, a fresh sample was drawn from the bulk parcel

on 07.06.2023 in the presence of the Illaqa Magistrate and sealed with

seal “RK”.

PW8 – Retired Inspector Narinder Singh: Deposed that on 16.10.2019,

the SI Varinderpal Singh, officiating SHO deposited the case property

along with the motorcycle in the malkhana. He further stated that the

parcels and sample seal chits were handed over to the Investigating

Officer for inventory proceedings.

7. After the conclusion of  prosecution evidence, statements of

the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused-Varinder

Thakur @ Vicky pleaded that he was innocent and that a false case had

been planted against him.

Accused-Vikram Singh @ Vicky also pleaded innocence and

stated that he had no connection with co-accused Varinder Thakur, nor

was he the owner of the motorcycle bearing registration No. PB-10-FZ-

1626.   He   further   stated   that   he   had   earlier   been   married   to   one

Ramanpreet Kaur, and due to disputes with her, and her acquaintance

with certain police officials, he had been falsely implicated in the present

case by officials of STF Ludhiana. He also claimed that he had been

picked up by STF Ludhiana prior to 15.10.2019 from his house.

CRA-S-3577-2023 and

CRA-S-3414-2023(O&M) 8

8. In defence, one witness was examined, namely Constable

Davinder Pal, who produced the summoned record, i.e., the Roznamcha

of STF Ludhiana dated 15.10.2019 and 16.10.2019. He also proved the

logbook of the official vehicle bearing registration No. PB-10-GK-6045

for the said dates.

A copy of a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage

Act, titled Vikram Singh vs. Ramanpreet Kaur, was tendered in evidence

as Ex. D1.

On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, learned trial Court

recorded its findings and consequently sentenced the accused as detailed

in the earlier part of the judgment.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that there is

total non-compliance with Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act. It is contended

that, as per the allegations in the FIR, upon receipt of secret information

and considering it to be reliable, a ruqa (information) was directly sent to

the police station through Constable Vishal Kumar.

PW-1 ASI Mohd. Sadiq deposed that it was he who had

received the secret information on his mobile phone No. 85918-00078

regarding the involvement of the accused in the illegal trade of heroin.

He further stated that he informed SI Gurcharan Singh verbally and got

his statement recorded as Ex. P1, on the basis of which SI Gurcharan

Singh sent the ruqa for registration of the FIR.

However, in his cross-examination, said witness deposed

that telephonic call received from the secret informer  at about 06:45 PM

and that he had reduced the information into writing on a piece of paper.

CRA-S-3577-2023 and

CRA-S-3414-2023(O&M) 9

He candidly admitted that the said paper was neither available with him

nor placed on the judicial file. He further admitted that no information

regarding the secret tip-off was sent to any superior officer.

The   witness   also   admitted   that   the   place   where   the

information was received was a thoroughfare, yet no attempt was made to

join any independent witness from that place. He further stated that the

ruqa carrier went to the police station on foot from the spot. It was also

admitted that at the time of preparation of his statement Ex. P1, no seal of

Police Station STF Mohali had been affixed.

10. Learned counsel also highlighted that the witness admitted

that   his   statement   was   recorded   by   Constable   Lakhwinder   Singh;

however, said constable has not been examined by the prosecution.

11. To  further  assail   the   credibility   of  the   witness,   learned

counsel referred the initial part of the cross-examination of PW-1 ASI

Mohd. Sadiq, wherein he admitted that earlier he was involved in one

more case under the NDPS Act and another under the Prevention of

Corruption Act in the year 2013 while posted at Police Station Dehlon,

although he was acquitted in both cases.

The   Investigating   Officer,   SI   Gurcharan   Singh   (PW-7),

deposed that the statement of ASI Mohd. Sadiq (Ex. P1) was recorded

and   signed,   and   thereafter   forwarded   to   the   police  station   through

Constable Vishal Kumar for registration of the FIR. However,   said

Constable Vishal Kumar has not been examined by the prosecution.

CRA-S-3577-2023 and

CRA-S-3414-2023(O&M) 10

Consequently, factum of forwarding of the ruqa to the police station

remains unproved.

During cross examination IO admitted that he had prepared

an information u/s 42 of NDPS Act on the spot, but the same was sent

after reaching the police station. IO also admitted that the writing work

was done through laptop by keeping the same on a folding chair,

however, he also admitted that regarding having private laptop no entry

in the DDR register was made.

PW-7,  the Investigating  Officer,  clearly admitted  in his

cross-examination that no recovery was effected from the personal search

of accused Vikram Singh @ Vicky. He further categorically stated that

the secret information had been received by ASI Mohd. Sadiq and that no

written record of such information was available on the judicial file. He

also admitted that he had not placed on record the call detail records of

the   mobile   phones   of   the   secret   informer   or   ASI   Mohd.   Sadiq.

Additionally, he expressed ignorance as to whether any criminal cases

had previously been registered against ASI Mohd. Sadiq.

12. On the basis of these admissions, learned counsel for the

appellants has argued that there is clear non-compliance with Section 42

of the NDPS Act, rendering the prosecution case highly doubtful. It is

contended   that   the   entire   case   has   been   built   upon  alleged   secret

information, with the FIR having been registered in advance, without any

credible or prior recovery. It is further submitted that, while sending the

ruqa through Constable Vishal Kumar for registration of the FIR, the

CRA-S-3577-2023 and

CRA-S-3414-2023(O&M) 11

Investigating Officer failed to record any reasons as to how or on what

basis the information was considered reliable.

13. In support of these submissions, reliance has been placed

upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Darshan Singh vs.

State of Haryana, 2016(1) RCR (Criminal) 333, and of the Punjab and

Haryana High Court in Daljit Singh @ Jit  vs. State of Punjab, 2023

NCPHHC 46785.

14. Another   limb   of   the   argument   raised   on   behalf   of  the

appellants is that the sample was required to be sent to the Forensic

Science Laboratory within 72 hours; however, in the present case, it is an

admitted position that the samples were dispatched after a delay of seven

days. Referring to the judgment of this Court, ‘Amar Singh @ Kabu Vs.

State of Haryana’, 2008(4) RCR( Criminal) 440, Law Finder Doc id #

144975, learned counsel submits that in the said case, samples were sent

after a delay of 07 days without explaining the reasons for delay and in

this circumstance, the unexplained delay in sending the sample to the

laboratory, certainly proved fatal to the case of prosecution. 

15. It is further argued that the alleged theft of the first sample

has not been duly proved by the prosecution on record. Consequently, the

link evidence in the prosecution case is stated to be completely missing.

On these grounds, it is prayed that the appellants be acquitted by droping

the charges framed against them.

16. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General,

Punjab, has argued that the mere non-availability of the  ruqa  on the

CRA-S-3577-2023 and

CRA-S-3414-2023(O&M) 12

judicial file does not lead to the presumption that no information was

forwarded to the police station immediately after receipt of the secret

information. Reliance is placed upon statement Ex. P1 of ASI Mohd.

Sadiq   (PW-1),   who   had   received   the   secret   information   and,   after

endorsement Ex. P1/A was made thereon by the Investigating Officer, the

same was forwarded to Police Station STF, Mohali, through Constable

Vishal Kumar for registration of the FIR.

It is further contended that, as per the findings recorded by

the learned trial Court, the special report under Section 42 of the NDPS

Act (Ex. PW7/A) was prepared at the spot, though it was dispatched to

the superior officers upon reaching the police station. Learned State

counsel thus argues that even if there was some delay, the subsequent

compliance with Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act is sufficient, and such

delayed compliance would not vitiate the trial.

Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act reads as under:

“42. Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without

warrant or authorisation

(1) xxx

(2)  Where an officer takes down any information in writing

under sub section (1) or records grounds for his belief under

the proviso thereto, he shall within seventy&two hours send a

copy thereof to his immediate official superior.”

17. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned

counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the record.

18. In   Darshan Singh (supra), paragraphs 10 to 13 reads as

under:

CRA-S-3577-2023 and

CRA-S-3414-2023(O&M) 13

“10. The solitary question that arises for our consideration

in the Instant appeal, is whether the registration of the first

information report, narrating the factual position as Lhas

already been described at the beginning of this order, as

also, the communication of the first information report to the

Superintendent of Police, Panipat would constitute an

effective compliance of the provisions contained in section

42 of the NDPS Act.

11. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the

submission advanced at the hands of learned counsel for the

respondent, we are of the view that the mandate contained in

section 42(1) of the NDPS Act, requiring the recording in

writing, the details pertaining to the receipt of secret

information, as also, the communication of the same to the

superior officer are separate and distinct from the procedure

stipulated under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure

Code. Sub&section 1 of section 41 of the NDPS Act provides

that a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the First

Class or any Magistrate of Second Class specially

empowered by the State Government may issue a warrant

for the arrest of any person whom he has reason to believe

to have committed any offence punishable under Chapter IV.

Sub&section (2) of Section 41 refers to issue of authorisation

for similar purposes by the officers of the Departments of

Central Excise, Narcotics, Customs, Revenue Intelligence,

etc. Sub&section (1) of section 42 of the NDPS Act lays

down, that the empowered officer, if he has a prior

information given by any person, should necessarily take it

down in writing, and where he has reason to believe from his

personal knowledge, that offences under Chapter IV have

been committed or that materials which may furnish

evidence of commission of such offences are concealed in

any building, etc. he may carry out the arrest or search,

CRA-S-3577-2023 and

CRA-S-3414-2023(O&M) 14

without warrant between sunrise and sunset and he may do

so without recording his reasons of belief. The two separate

procedures noticed above are exclusive of one another.

Compliance of one, would not infer the compliance of the

other. In the circumstances contemplated under section 42 of

the NDPS Act the mandate of the procedure contemplated

therein will have to be followed separately, in the manner

interpreted by this Court in Karnail Singh's case (supra) and

the same will not be assumed, merely because the Station

House Officer concerned had registered a first Information

report, which was also dispatched to the Superintendent of

Police, in compliance with the provisions of the Criminal

Procedure Code.

12. In the above view of the matter, it is not possible for

us to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the

respondent&State, that the registration of the first

information report at the hands of the Station House Officer,

Police Station Shahar, Panipat and its communication to the

Superintendent of Police, Panipat would constitute sufficient

compliance of the mandate of section 42 of the NDPS Act.

13. In aforesaid view of the matter, we are satisfied, that

section 42 of the NDPS Act was not complied with at all,

insofar as the present controversy is concerned. Thus

viewed, conclusion (d) recorded in Paragraph 35 of the

judgment rendered in Karnall Singh's case (supra), would

fully apply to the facts and circumstances of the present

case, and we are left with no other option, but to set aside

the conviction and the sentence of imprisonment of the\

accused&appellant Darshan Singh. Ordered accordingly. The

appeal stands allowed.”

19. Delay   in   compliance   with   the   requirement   of   sending

information under Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act has also been viewed

CRA-S-3577-2023 and

CRA-S-3414-2023(O&M) 15

adversely against the prosecution in Daljit Singh @ Jit v. State of Punjab

by this Court, wherein it was held that strict and conscious compliance of

Section   42   is   mandatory   and   failure   to   produce   contemporaneous

documentary evidence regarding transmission of information to superior

officers creates a serious dent in the prosecution case, entitling the

accused to the benefit of doubt. If the mandate of Section 42 of the NDPS

Act is applied to the present case,  statements of PW-1 ASI Mohd. Sadiq

and the Investigating Officer SI Gurcharan Singh (PW-7) make it evident

that no documentary evidence has been brought on record to establish

due compliance, thereby failing to rebut the arguments advanced by

learned counsel for the appellants or to sustain the findings recorded by

the learned trial Court. Both the witnesses have categorically admitted

that no document regarding compliance of Section 42(2), particularly

with respect to forwarding information to superior officers, has been

produced or proved on record. The testimony of the Gazetted Officer

(PW-6) further weakens the prosecution case, as he stated that “we were

having cell phones with us but we did not prepare any videography or

photographs through our phones at the spot. The particulars of the case

was mentioned on the parcels by IO SI Gurcharan Singh.” 

The admission of the DSP that he reached the spot alone at

about 09:15 PM by driving himself also appears doubtful. No particulars,

including the registration number of the vehicle allegedly used by the

Gazetted Officer to reach the place of recovery, have been disclosed in

the evidence.

CRA-S-3577-2023 and

CRA-S-3414-2023(O&M) 16

Although   Constable   Lakhwinder   Singh,   who   recorded

statement   Ex.   P1,   may   not   be   that   essential   to   examine   but   even

Constable Vishal Kumar—who allegedly carried the information to the

police station at the initial stage—was not produced as a witness by the

prosecution. His non-examination creates further doubt, as to whether

any such information was in fact received, whether it was forwarded to

the police station for entry, and whether it was thereafter communicated

to superior officers. Why such a witness was withheld from examination

as “unnecessary” vide order dated 21.12.2022 be best known to the

Public Prosecutor.

When SHO SI Varinderpal Singh (PW-5) entered the witness

box, he did not depose about receipt of any such secret information at the

police   station   or   about   any   entry   being   made   in   this   regard.   No

corresponding record has been proved on file.

20. In   view   of   the   above   circumstances,   this   Court   is   in

agreement with the contention that there is complete non-compliance of

the mandate of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. Additionally, there is no

satisfactory explanation for the delay of one week in sending the samples

to the laboratory. The occurrence having taken place on a public street,

which   was   admittedly   a   thoroughfare,   and   despite   availability   of

independent   witnesses,   none   were   associated   with   the   recovery

proceedings.

21. Accordingly,   in   view   of   the   foregoing   discussion,   the

prosecution case is rendered doubtful. Both the appeals are accordingly

CRA-S-3577-2023 and

CRA-S-3414-2023(O&M) 17

allowed and the appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against

them.   Since   the   appellants   are   in   custody,   they   shall   be   released

forthwith, if not required in any other case (the bail bonds and surety

bonds, if any, shall stand discharged).

22 A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another

connected case.

                  (SANJAY VASHISTH)

                                                           JUDGE

12.05.2026

Rashmi

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

      Whether Reportable:  Yes/No