Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Ut Chandigarh vs Deepika Khanna on 19 April, 2024
Author: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Bench: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053906
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
229
2024:PHHC:053906
CRM-A No.348 of 2022
Date of decision: April 19th, 2024
State of Union Territory Chandigarh
.....Applicant
Versus
Deepika Khanna
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present: Mr. Charanjit S. Bakshi, Additional Public Prosecutor,
U.T. Chandigarh
and Mr. Gagandeep Singh, Advocate
for the applicant.
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J.
The applicant is impugning the judgment dated 14.09.2021
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge,
Chandigarh, whereby respondent-accused has been acquitted of the
charges framed against her in case FIR No.86 dated 12.03.2019 under
Section 21 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
(hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act'), registered at Police Station
Sector 31, Chandigarh.
2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 12.03.2019, at around
5:45 PM, a police patrol party noticed a woman (hereinafter referred to as
'accused') behaving suspiciously while walking on the road. On seeing the
police, the accused attempted to discard a transparent polythene pouch,
which she was holding in her hand. Upon suspicion that the accused may
be carrying some stolen goods or illegal arms and ammunition or narcotic
substances, the pouch which she was holding in her hand, was inspected
by the police party and it was found containing a white substance, which
was later identified as heroin. The accused was unable to produce any
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053906
licence for possessing the substance. Subsequently, the recovered
substance on being weighed, came to 10 grams; the recovered
contraband was sealed as per the procedure provided and thereafter, all
the requisite formalities were carried out by the police. The case
property along with the sample seals was sent to the Forensic Science
Laboratory at Chandigarh. Challan along with the Forensic Science
Laboratory report was presented before the learned Special Court
leading to the framing of charges against the accused under Section 21
of the NDPS Act. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case,
examined ten witnesses including the Investigating Officer ASI Lakha
Singh and PW-3 SI Eram Rizvi, the police officer, who apprehended
the accused. While getting her statement under Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C., the accused claimed false implication but did not lead any
evidence in support of her innocence.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant/State has vehemently
submitted that the Special Court at Chandigarh erroneously acquitted
the respondent of the charges framed against her under Section 21 of
the NDPS Act. It has been argued that the accused was apprehended on
suspicion and thereafter, recovery of 10 grams of heroin affected from
her. All the procedural formalities outlined under the NDPS Act were
followed. However, the learned Special Court recorded a finding of
acquittal in favour of the accused only on the ground that there had
been non- compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Learned counsel
has asserted that since it was a case of chance recovery, mere
non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act could not have enured
to the benefit of the accused, more so when the recovery was affected
from a pouch, which the accused was holding in her hands and which
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053906
would not qualify as a wearing apparel of the accused. Hence,
compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act would not have been
required in the instant case. It has still further been argued that no
doubt, there was some delay in the dispatch of the case property to the
CFSL, however, since it was received in an intact condition, it did not
in any manner, prejudice the case of the prosecution.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused
the relevant material on record.
5. As per the case of the prosecution, upon noticing the police
party, the accused swiftly changed direction and started walking away
briskly; she was intercepted by the police officials, who suspected that
she may be carrying some stolen goods/illegal arms and ammunition or
narcotic substance. The accused on being stopped by the police was
found to be carrying a transparent polythene pouch in the fist of her
right hand. On being tested with a drug detection kit, it was confirmed
to be heroin, weighing 10 grams. No doubt, the recoveries were duly
sealed and all the other procedures outlined in the NDPS Act were
followed, however, PW-7 HC Fateh Singh categorically testified that
the accused was holding the pouch containing heroin in the fist of her
right hand, which fact was also corroborated by PW-3 S.I. Eram Rizvi.
The testimony of PW-7 HC Fateh Singh, who admittedly was a part of
the police patrol party cannot thus, be discarded. No doubt, PW-3 S.I.
Eram Rizvi did not depose that they suspected the accused to be in
possession of some narcotic substance, however, PW-7 HC
Fateh Singh, confirmed the same. Notably, PW-3 S.I. Eram Rizvi
though, as per her own deposition, called the Investigating Officer to
the spot but she did not serve any notice under Section 50 of the NDPS
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053906
Act before carrying out the personal search of the accused and before
inspecting the substance, which was in a transparent polythene pouch.
This omission is crucial as the case property was found directly on the
person of the accused, and not in any of her belongings. Moreover,
suspicion of any narcotic possession by the police, mandated a notice
under Section 50 of the NDPS Act to be served upon the accused.
The recovery, although incidental, was affected through a personal
search of the hands of the accused. Hence, adherence to Section 50 of
the NDPS Act in the facts and circumstances of this case was essential.
This Court, therefore, does not find any illegality in the impugned
order.
6. The application stands dismissed.
April 19th, 2024 (M
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
Puneet JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
4 of 4
