Poverty no ground for taking lenient view in drug cases, rules High Court

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, June 11

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that an accused or a convict cannot harp upon his economic conditions to seek immunity against criminal conduct. The assertion came after a convict in a drugs case asked the court to take a lenient view while imposing sentence on the ground that he was a man with meagre means and unemployed.

Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj also made it clear that the mandatory provision of being searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or a magistrate was not applicable to chance recoveries. In his detailed order, Justice Bhardwaj asserted it was argued by the counsel that the appellant-accused was a poor person and unemployed. His father had died and his mother was more than 55 years old as on date of his conviction. Besides, he did not have previous conviction or involvement in any other criminal case. As such, a lenient view may be taken.

Justice Bhardwaj asserted: “The submission by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The economic condition of an accused or a person convicted of crime cannot be immunity against criminal conduct. Drug abuse has been recognised as the single most powerful social offender. Its impact on people addicted to it is catastrophic”.

The matter was brought to Justice Bhardwaj’s notice after a convict in a drugs case filed an appeal before the High Court against the judgment of his conviction by Judge, UT Special Court, on March 19, 2019, under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. Among other things, his counsel argued that the appellant was apprehended by a Sub-Inspector, who carried out his “search and seizure” without making any offer under Section 50, NDPS Act. Elaborating, he stated it was imperative on the police officer’s part to “apprise the person intended to be searched of his right to be searched under Section 50 only before a gazetted officer or a magistrate”. The provision was mandatory and had to be strictly complied with. Failure on the investigating agency’s part to comply with the mandatory provision would render the recovery “suspect and unworthy of any acceptance”.

Rejecting the prayer, Justice Bhardwaj asserted the counsel appearing on the appellant’s behalf had not disputed the fact that it was a case of chance recovery. It could not be presumed that the investigating officer was aware of the contents of the plastic carry bag held by the appellant-accused. There could have been anything in it, contraband being one of the possibilities. “The investigating agency, as such, had no occasion to entertain any suspicion. There would be no reason for making an offer after recovery had already been effected,” Justice Bhardwaj added Dismissing the appeal after considering other arguments as well, Justice Bhardwaj concluded further relief or concession could not be extended to the appellant as already minimum prescribed sentence of 10 years had been imposed.