Sri Ningappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 March, 2026

                                           -1-
                                                         NC: 2026:KHC-K:2804
                                                 CRL.P No. 200163 of 2026


                HC-KAR



                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                                   KALABURAGI BENCH
                         DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
                                        BEFORE
                         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
                         CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200163 OF 2026
                                 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
               BETWEEN:

               SRI. NINGAPPA MANNUR
               S/O SHIVAYOGEPPA MANNUR
               AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: PSI BEMALKHEDA
               R/O BEMALKHEDA POLICE STATION
               TQ: CHITGOPPA, DIST: BIDAR
                                                               ...PETITIONER
               (BY SRI. GANESH NAIK., ADVOCATE)
               AND:

                    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                    THROUGH HALLIKHED-B POLICE STATION
                    TQ: HUMNABAD DIST: BIDAR
Digitally signed by
SHIVALEELA          IT'S PREPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP
DATTATRAYA UDAGI HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF            KALABURAGI BENCH
KARNATAKA           DIST: KALABURAGI-585103
                                                              ...RESPONDENT
               (BY SRI.JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP)
                    THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. (OLD), U/SEC. 528
               OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO A) QUASH THE IMPUGNED
               ORDER DATED 06.05.2025 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT
               AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BASAVAKALYAN DIST. BIDAR IN SPL.C
               NO.5017/2021, INSOFAR AS IT PERTAINING TO THE
               IMPOSITION OF A FINE OF RS.25,000/- TO THE PETITIONER/
               (CW-34).
                               -2-
                                           NC: 2026:KHC-K:2804
                                    CRL.P No. 200163 of 2026


HC-KAR



    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

                        ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section

528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking

following relief's:

"Wherefore it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

a) Quash the impugned order dated 06.05.2025 passed by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Basavakalyan, Dist: Bidar, in Spl.C.No.5017/2021, insofar as it pertaining to the imposition of a fine of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner/CW.34.

b) Pass such other order or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

2. The brief facts leading to this petition are that:

the Hallikhed police have submitted the charge sheet

against the accused for the commission of offence under

Sections 20(A)(B), 25 of NDPS Act. The case was

registered in Spl.C.No.5017/2021. The application was

NC: 2026:KHC-K:2804

HC-KAR

filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. by the accused, the

same was rejected. The charges were framed against the

accused for the alleged offences and the trial Court has

recorded the evidence of witnesses. The statement under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was also recorded. On 08.04.2025,

the trial Court has observed that the Investigating Officer

has not complied Section 52(A) of NDPS Act. Accordingly,

show cause notice was issue issued to CW.34 to appear

and explain with regard to the defective investigation

conducted in this case. On 05.05.2025, the petitioner was

present and sought time for explanation. On 06.05.2025,

CW.34, present before the Court and sought apology for

not sending inventory samples to the FSL Department, due

to lack of procedure and he acted on oral advice of the

Higher Officer. Hence, the trial Court has passed an order

directing CW.34 to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and draft the

proceedings against CW.34. Being aggrieved by the said

order, the petitioner has preferred this petition.

NC: 2026:KHC-K:2804

HC-KAR

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned High Court Government Pleader for the

respondent - State.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner would submit that the impugned order is illegal,

arbitrary, perverse, and passed without proper application

of judicial mind to the facts and circumstances on record.

Further, it is submitted that, the learned Sessions Judge

failed to peruse and appreciate the statement of CW-26

and the FSL acknowledgment bearing Ref:

FSL/CS/1141/2020, which are part of the charge sheet

records. This documentary evidence unequivocally

establishes that the mandatory requirement of sending

samples for chemical examination was duly fulfilled at the

initial stage of the investigation. The impugned order

unfairly holds the Petitioner,CW-34, liable for an alleged

procedural lapse, completely ignoring the fact that the

primary investigation, including the seizure, registration of

the FIR, and dispatch of contraband to the FSL, was

NC: 2026:KHC-K:2804

HC-KAR

conducted by CW-33. The Petitioner only took over the

investigation at a later stage, and he cannot be vicariously

held liable for the acts of his predecessor, especially when

the predecessor had acted in accordance with the law. The

learned Sessions Judge failed to consider that CW-33, the

officer who could have clarified the entire sequence of

events, was unfortunately deceased and had been dropped

from the witness list. Penalizing the Petitioner in the

absence of the primary officer is unjust and contrary to the

principles of natural justice. The apology tendered by the

Petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge was under a

mistaken apprehension of fiets and due to the pressure of

the court proceedings. It cannot be construed as an

admission of guilt, particularly when the record itself

exonerates him and demonstrates that the necessary

procedures were, in fact, followed. An admission on a

point of law or a mistaken admission on facts is not

binding and same cannot form the sole basis for a punitive

order. The trial court has no jurisdiction under the Code of

NC: 2026:KHC-K:2804

HC-KAR

Criminal Procedure, 1973, or the NDPS Act to conduct a

summary inquiry against an Investigating Officer and

impose a fine for alleged defects in the investigation, Such

an action is punitive and encroaches upon the

administrative and disciplinary domain of the police

department. The role of the court is to adjudicate the guilt

or innocence of the accused based on the evidence

adduced and not to penalize the investigators. The

impugned order amounts to a manifest abuse of the

process of the court. The power of a court cannot be used

for punitive measures against police officers for which a

separate administrative and disciplinary mechanism exists.

The correct judicial approach, as established by long-

standing precedent, would be to record the court's

displeasure or findings regarding the defective

investigation in the judgment and forward a copy to the

superior police authorities, such as the Superintendent of

Police or the Director General of Police, for their

consideration and for initiating appropriate departmental

NC: 2026:KHC-K:2804

HC-KAR

action. The learned Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate

that the alleged non-compliance with Section 52(A) of the

NDPS Act is only, a procedural irregularity. As held in

various pronouncements, including by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in cases like Bharat Aambale v. State of

Chhattisgarh, such procedural lapses do not

automatically vitiate the entire proceedings nor do they

create a cause of action for penalizing the investigating

officer, especially when the lapse was not shown to be

deliberate or actuated by malice. The order is passed in

violation of the principles of natural justice. While a show-

cause notice was ostensibly issued, the summary

procedure adopted to impose a substantial monetary

penalty is unjust and improper. The Petitioner is not an

accused before the court, and subjecting him to a punitive

order without a proper inquiry is contrary to law. The

explanation and unconditional apology tendered by the

Petitioner were summarily brushed aside without due

consideration. The learned Sessions Judge has failed to

NC: 2026:KHC-K:2804

HC-KAR

cite any legal provision, precedent, or source of power that

justifies the imposition of such a fine. An order that affects

the rights of an individual, particularly a punitive one,

must be founded on a clear and specific provision of law.

In the absence of such a legal basis, the order is coram

non judice and unsustainable. Allowing such orders to

stand would set a dangerous precedent and have a chilling

effect on the morale and functioning of the police force.

Investigating officers would be deterred from conducting

investigations freely and fairly under the constant threat of

being personally penalized by trial courts for unintentional

procedural errors. This would ultimately undermine the

administration of criminal justice. The judiciary's role is to

be a neutral arbiter, not a disciplinary authority for the

police. The learned Sessions Judge has conflated the

judicial function of trial adjudication with an administrative

function of departmental supervision. The court has

travelled beyond its defined role under the constitutional

scheme and the Code of Criminal Procedure. The principles

NC: 2026:KHC-K:2804

HC-KAR

laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of

Haryana Bhajan Lal implicitly caution against such

overreach which amounts to an abuse of the court's

process. That, the Apex Court in the case of Union of

India v. Mohanlal & Anr. has laid down guidelines

regarding the procedure under Section 52A of the NDPS

Act. While the procedure is mandatory, the consequence

of any alleged non-compliance is a matter for appreciation

of evidence during the trial to determine its impact on the

prosecution's case against the accused. It does not

empower the court to summarily punish the Investigating

Officer. The observation of the learned Sessions Judge that

the purpose of issuing summons to the remaining

witnesses would not survive is a premature determination

on the merits of the case. This finding has foreclosed the

prosecution's right to lead evidence and has caused

irreparable prejudice to the case of the State, which is

against the established principles of criminal

jurisprudence. The impugned order, if allowed to stand,

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:2804

HC-KAR

would set a dangerous precedent, demoralizing police

officers who perform their duties diligently. It would

subject them to summary penalties without a proper

inquiry, which is not the legislative intent of the NDPS Act

or the Cr.P.C.

5. Though this petitioner is arrayed as a witness-

CW.34, he was not examined before the Court. The Trial

Court has not provided an opportunity to CW.34 to come

to the witness box and depose his evidence with regard to

the compliance of Section 52(A) of NDPS Act. Before

imposing fine of Rs.25,000/- the trial Court has not

provided any opportunity to this petitioner as to the

imposition of fine of Rs.25,000/-. The learned trial Judge

has no right to impose fine of Rs.25,000/- to the witness

CW.34 for non-compliance of Section 52(A) of NDPS Act.

The Trial Court has not followed any procedure before

imposing fine of Rs.25,000/-. Even the Trial Court has not

mentioned on which provision of law, the fine amount of

Rs.25,000/- is imposed to CW.34. Viewed from any angle,

- 11 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:2804

HC-KAR

the impugned order passed by the trial Court against the

present petitioner is not sustainable under law. Hence, I

proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

(a) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

(b) The impugned order dated 06.02.2025 passed in Spl.C.No.5017/2021 by the II Addl.

Distrcit and Sessions Judge, Basavakalyan, Dist: Bidar, insofar as it pertains to the imposition of fine of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner-CW.34 is set aside.

Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to

the trial Court.

Sd/-

(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

MSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26