2019 (1) TMI 2054 - SC - Indian Laws

Violation of principles of natural justice - failure to explain why the sole independent witness, Gurdev Singh Mann, who was present on the spot and in whose presence the search and seizure was carried out and being one of the witnesses for drawing the panchanamas, has not been examined by the prosecution - Offence punishable Under Section 15 of the Narcotic, Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - carrying a huge quantity of bulk poppy husk - HELD THAT - Indeed, Manjit Singh (PW 2) had received information telephonically and had passed on the same to his contemporary who recorded the FIR but the fact remains that he himself investigated the case. The unfairness in investigation becomes more glaring when we peruse the search and seizure panchanamas. It is seen that the FIR number has been noted at the top of these panchanamas. It is unfathomable as to how the FIR number could be noted on the search and seizure panchanamas when the same were drawn up obviously at an earlier point in time and preceded the registration of the FIR. Even this discrepancy has not been explained by the prosecution at all. Furthermore, we find that the FIR has been registered by Nirmaljit Singh but he has not been examined by the prosecution and no explanation is offered in this regard as well. All the deficiencies create serious doubts and are fatal to the prosecution case, for which reason the Appellant deserves to be acquitted of the stated offence by giving him the benefit of doubt. The bail bond stands discharged. The appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against judgment of High Court, Failure to examine independent witness, Unfair investigation by informant being the investigator, Discrepancies in search and seizure panchanamas, Failure to explain FIR registration by unexamined individual.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Supreme Court challenged the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, where the Appellant, along with two other accused, was tried for an offence under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Appellant was arrested after a search and seizure operation on 14.05.1999, where a substantial amount of bulk poppy husk was found. The Trial Court found all accused guilty, leading to an appeal before the High Court, which was dismissed (Para. 2-4).

The Supreme Court found merit in the appeal due to the prosecution's failure to examine the sole independent witness, Gurdev Singh Mann, who was present during the search and seizure operation. The Court noted that the Trial Court's reasoning for not examining Mann was not adequately explained by the prosecution. Additionally, the Court highlighted the issue of unfair investigation, citing a recent decision emphasizing the importance of the informant and the investigator not being the same person (Para. 5-6).

Further scrutiny revealed discrepancies in the investigation process, particularly regarding the informant, Manjit Singh, who also conducted the investigation despite receiving the initial information and recording the FIR. The Court noted that the FIR number was mentioned on the search and seizure documents before the FIR was officially registered, raising questions about the integrity of the process. Moreover, the prosecution failed to explain why another individual who registered the FIR was not examined (Para. 7).

Consequently, the Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution's deficiencies and the doubts raised regarding the investigation were fatal to the case. As a result, the Court acquitted the Appellant of the charged offence, giving the benefit of the doubt. The bail bond was discharged, and the appeal was allowed (Para. 8).