JOGINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this common order, I dispose of all the aforementioned petitions, as it is noticed in many cases that the Investigating Officers, while conducting the investigation under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act'), are not adhering to the mandatory provisions of NDPS Act. Though it cannot be said at this stage whether the Investigating Officers are leaving a lacuna intentionally to do favour to the accused persons, as on the other hand, a common defence is taken by all the accused persons that they have been falsely implicated yet the lapses on the part of Investigating Officers need to be checked in future. Separate replies by way of affidavits of Addl. Director Bureau of Investigation of both the States along with concerned Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police have been filed in the Court today. For the sake of brevity, in all the affidavits, it is stated that the Investigating Officers have failed to comply with the provisions of NDPS Act and accordingly, departmental proceedings are initiated against them by the competent authority.

(2.) CRM-M-5074-2019 In the affidavit of Senior Superintendent of Police, Police District Khanna, District Ludhiana, it is admitted that despite receiving a secret information, neither any notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act was given to the accused persons before conducting the personal search nor an information/ruqa was sent to the police station as per Section 42 of NDPS Act.

(3.) CRM-M-64384-2018 and CRM-M-48327-2018 In the short replies by way of affidavits of Senior Superintendent of Police, District Tarn Taran, it is stated that while giving the notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act, a joint non-consent memo was prepared, which is not the correct procedure as per provisions of NDPS Act and while admitting the mistake of the Investigating Officer as well as DSP, who was called at the spot, it is stated in these affidavits that departmental proceedings are initiated against L/SI Sukhraj Singh and Satpal Singh, DSP. CRM-M-5555-2019 In the affidavit of Addl. Director General of Police, Crime, Haryana, Panchkula, it is stated that while giving the notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act, an offer was given to the accused that he has a right to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer or before an officer of revenue/excise department, which is not the requirement of Section 50 of NDPS Act and therefore, the Investigating Officer has given a third option beyond the scope of Section 50(1) of NDPS Act. In this affidavit, again admitting the lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer, it is stated that departmental inquiry is initiated against ASI Chandeshwer. CRM-M-3025, 3465 and 3441-2019 In the affidavit of Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana, it is stated that on a single day, three FIRs No.42, 43 and 44 were registered in the same police station, in which three accused persons were arrested in a similar manner, with the allegations that they are having 255 grams, 262 grams and 250 grams of intoxicant powder. In these three cases, the consent memo was recorded, reposing faith in the Investigating Officer, who did not call the second Investigating Officer and as per the affidavit of Director, Bureau of Investigation, Punjab, the Investigating Officer did not intimate his senior officer within 72 hours of the search as prescribed under Section 50 (6) of NDPS Act and in FIR No.43, as per the FSL report, no psychotropic substance was found and cancellation report was recommended to be filed in Court.