HC: Can’t accept cops’ word without proof

Saurabh Malik

Advertisement

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, May 23

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that police officials’ word without corroboration in drug cases cannot be accepted. It amounted to saying all such cops were 100 per cent trustworthy and could not lie, which regrettably was not the reality. The Bench of Justice Amol Rattan Singh also asserted that the courts were required to see innocents or petty thieves were not implicated in the war against drugs and the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act were strictly complied with.

He reiterated observations made by the Supreme Court that a suspect should be taken to a magistrate during search proceedings, who enjoys more confidence in the eyes of a common man than any other person.

He asserted that the court was obviously fully alive to the fact that the drug menace in the state was to be curbed. But were all those apprehended actually indulging in drug sale or some were only petty thieves and possibly others shown to be apprehended?

Hence, it was required to be seen by all courts that the provisions of the Act, further interpreted by the Supreme Court, were fully complied with. He added that such provisions were very stringent.

“Therefore, simply accepting the word of a police official to be the absolute true version of any particular occurrence, without any corroboration, amounts to saying that all such police officials are 100 per cent trustworthy and can tell no lie, which unfortunately is not the case. This observation is made with due respect to such police officers and officials, at all levels, who do their duty honestly and diligently,” he said.

The developments took place on a bunch of two petitions filed by Sukhvir Singh and another petitioner against Punjab and other respondents for bail and suspension of sentence.

Their counsel had submitted that the police party, shown to have apprehended suspects with contraband, was duty bound to produce them before the magistrate.

Elaborating, the counsel said the mandate of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, as held by the Supreme Court, was that an accused suspected of carrying contraband should be produced before a magistrate or at least a gazetted officer even if he was apprehended by a patrolling party.