Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, November 12
In a major embarrassment for the Punjab Police, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that the mandatory statutory provisions of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act were not being complied with by officers in more than a few cases. This, the High Court asserted, was either because of lack of training or mala fide intention.
“This court would like to note that in a large number of cases, defective offers are made under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Police officials concerned are either lacking in training or they are exercising the powers in a mala fide intention. Be that as it may, it is serious in nature. The statutory provisions, which are mandatory in nature have to be complied with in true spirit,” Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri asserted.
The assertion came as Justice Puri ordered the forwarding of the order’s copy to the State Director-General of Police for information before making it clear that he was expected to look into the issue of non-compliance.
The provision makes it clear that a police officer is required to apprise the person intended to be frisked of his valuable right to be searched either before a gazetted officer or a magistrate under Section 50 of the Act. The provision is mandatory and has to be strictly complied with. Failure on the investigating agency’s part to comply with the provision more often than not renders the recovery unworthy of acceptance. Justice Puri has already made it clear that the provision was aimed at protecting an accused from false implication.
The matter was brought to Justice Puri’s notice after an accused filed a second petition for regular bail in a case registered on July 8, 2021, under the provisions of the NDPS Act at the Sangat police station in Bathinda district.
Justice Puri observed that the offer given to the petitioner was apparently defective and contrary to the provisions of Section 50. An ASI offered the petitioner to get him searched either from him, a gazetted officer or a magistrate.
Justice Puri added that the state counsel during the course of hearing also did not dispute that a defective offer, contrary to the mandatory provisions of Section 50, was made as the petitioner was given three search options.
Justice Puri also took note of the repeated absence of the ASI, who allegedly apprehended the petitioner, following which the trial court was constrained to issue bailable warrants against him twice.
Justice Puri added it was “very strange” to note that a person having clean antecedents and not involved in any other case and had faced incarceration for more than one year and was facing trial, but the police official, who allegedly apprehended him and was heading the police party, had absented himself.
Allowing the plea, Justice Puri said there were prima facie reasons to believe that the petitioner was not guilty of offence at least at the current stage.
