High Court raps Punjab Police for delay in NDPS case probe
Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, August 13
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has admonished the Punjab Police for its callous and lackadaisical approach in investigating a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The court’s reprimand came after it was revealed that the police had not yet presented the challan despite the registration of an FIR in June last year. The Bench was of the opinion that such delays could undermine the principle of a speedy trial, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
“It would be apposite to mention that in the present case, though FIR stands registered on June 25, 2023, till today challan has not been presented, which shows the callous and lackadaisical approach of the investigating agency,” Justice Sandeep Moudgil asserted.
The matter was brought to Justice Moudgil’s notice after the accused filed a petition seeking regular bail in the drugs case registered at the Jandiala police station in Amritsar Rural. Among other things, the Bench was told that the bar on bail in cases involving commercial quantity of contraband under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not apply in the present case, particularly in view of the fact that the alleged seizure was not carried out from his conscious possession.
Granting regular bail to the accused, Justice Moudgil called attention to the impact of delayed challan on the legal proceedings by observing that the petitioner had already spent over seven months in custody, without any recovery being made from his conscious possession and solely based on the disclosure of a co-accused.
Justice Moudgil also referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of “Dataram Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another”, where the importance of expeditious disposal and the right to a speedy trial were underlines.
The Bench also cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of “Toofan Singh versus State of Tamil Nadu”, which clarified that confessional statement made by co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was weak evidence and must be cautiously weighed alongside other evidence.
Justice Moudgil’s judgment is significant as it indicates that delay not only compromises the rights of an accused, but also casts a shadow on the investigative agency’s efficiency. The ruling highlights the broader issue of delayed investigation and its potential to affect judicial outcomes. The order makes it clear that the timely conduct of investigations is crucial to upholding justice and ensuring that the rights of the accused are not trampled by administrative inefficiencies.
