CAUSE TITLE:
Parkash Singh Versus State of Punjab
DATE OF ORDER:
03.02.2023
JUDGE(S):
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
PARTIES:
Petitioner: Parkash Singh
Respondent: State of Punjab
SUBJECT
The Punjab and Haryana High Court directed the state to establish a method to eliminate doubt regarding the location, date, and time of compilation of consent/non-consent memos following Section 50 of the NDPS Act.
The bench of Justice Pankaj Jain stated that to dispel confusion regarding this critical part of the investigation, Investigating Agencies must be more aggressive, and the probe must be more robust.
BRIEF FACTS
The accused (Parkash Singh) was the driver of the truck that reportedly transported 12 kgs of poppy husk. A total of 200 grams was recovered. Currency notes totaling Rs.11080/- were found during his personal search.
The accused argued that the consent memos (under Section 50 of the NDPS Act) recorded at the time of search and seizure had an FIR number written on them, and that disclosing the same even before the registration of the FIR would be a situation to cast doubt on the agencies' investigation.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
His counsel also stated that this demonstrates that, even before the search, the Investigating Authorities were certain that the contraband would be located, resulting in the filing of an FIR, which clearly speaks to the agencies' wrongful implication of the appellant.
It was also claimed that there was no independent witness present.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
On the other side, the state counsel's counsel contended that a cursory review of the permission memos reveals that blank space was left at the time of preparation, which was afterward completed after the FIR number was assigned to Ruqa.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
The Court dismissed the argument about the absence of an independent witness right away, noting that it is general knowledge that independent witnesses rarely join such hearings.
Furthermore, the Court dismissed the claim that the reference of FIR data on the consent note and the non-consent letter created on the spot was without substance.
The mere reference of the FIR number in the documents cannot lead to the inference that they were prepared at a later stage. "In the absence of any query asked of the Investigating Officer or the Gazetted Officer that the documents were not generated on the spot, the mere reference of the FIR number in the documents cannot be construed to be fatal to the prosecution," the Court stated.
The Court did, however, emphasise that Section 50 of the NDPS Act is mandatory, and non-compliance with it can result in an accused's acquittal, and that whenever a personal search is to be conducted, consent/non-consent memos under Section 50 are written prior to the filing of a anIR.
"In some circumstances, the plea of consent memos prepared after registration of FIR for carrying details of FIR leads to acquittal, and in others, such as the present case, it is determined to be insignificant," the Court said.
As a result, the Court recommended that the state take steps to eliminate this uncertainty.
The appeal was thus dismissed, and the Special Judge of Gurdaspur's decision of conviction was affirmed.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
