High Court raps Punjab, Haryana for flawed probe in drug cases, orders remedial training in Himachal Pradesh

Saurabh Malik

Advertisement

Chandigarh, March 5

In a major embarrassment for the Punjab and Haryana police, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has asserted that the investigation into drug cases in the two states is extremely flawed.

Describing it as far superior in Himachal Pradesh, the Bench called for bridging the gap by directing the police chiefs of the two states to depute batches of investigating officers for proper mentoring at the Dharamsala police training centre.

Amidst claims of stringent measures by the police of the two states to deal with the drug menace, the Division Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Lalit Batra asserted the court had noticed that the investigation in cases registered under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act in both the states was “extremely faulty”.

The Bench observed that it had, as such, asked the Directors-General of Police of the two states to ensure that the investigating officers in drug cases were mentored by an expert. Noticing that the data or statistics regarding the implementation of the directives were not there, the Bench also called for relevant information pertaining to the previously issued directions.

In its detailed order, the Bench asserted: “Since the investigation into NDPS matters in Himachal Pradesh is far superior to the investigation by the investigating officers of Punjab and Haryana, this court makes a direction, upon the Directors-General of Police of the two states to within a fortnight from today ensure that the batches of investigating officers are deputed to take mentoring at PTC, Daroh, Dharamsala.”

The Bench also made it clear that the training, to be imparted by the subject expert at the centre, would to be completed within three months and a compliance affidavit furnished before the court by the two DGPs and the training centre principal. The Bench also made it clear that all expenses towards boarding and lodging of the police officers would be borne by the two states.

The Bench was hearing an appeal filed by a convict sentenced to rigorous imprisonment extending up to 15 years in a drugs case. Referring to the facts of the case, the Bench asserted that the impugned verdict of conviction and the order of sentence did not suffer from “any gross perversity, or absurdity of gross mis-appreciation and, non-appreciation of the evidence on record”.