High Court Summons Punjab Home Affairs Secretary, DGP Over Regular Non-Appearance Of Official Witness In NDPS Cases

Observing that non-appearance of official witness in NDPS Act have become a "regular feature" in Punjab, the High Court today directed the State's Home Affairs Secretary, DGP and SSP, Sri Muktsar Sahib to remain present before it tomorrow.

Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul observed, "This has more or less become a regular feature in the State of Punjab that prosecution witnesses, who are mostly official witnesses in cases registered under the NDPS Act, have not been appearing during trial to get their evidence recorded as a result of which the trials are naturally getting delayed."

The Court further added that on a number of occasions in the past, it had directed the presence of SSP of various districts, who repeatedly assured the Court that in future trial would not be delayed due to non-appearance of the prosecution witnesses. "However, this Court is pained to observe that these assurances have been in vain and possibly have been given only to appease this Court," the bench added.

Recently, the Judge had suspected complicity of police in such cases, stating accused persons under the NDPS Act have been repeatedly seeking bail due to non-appearance of police witnesses.

Today, the Court said it will, "no longer be a mute spectator moreso in the light of devastating affect which the menace drugs is having on the society especially the youth in this part of the country."

These observations came in response to the plea filed by one Arshdeep Singh seeking concession of bail under Section 439 of the CrPC, under Sections 22(c) of NDPS Act, for allegedly having been found in possession of 1000 tablets of Clovidol-100 SR Tramadol Hydrochloridetablets-100 mg and 500 tablets of Etolam 0.5 Etizolam tablets 0.5 mg.

The counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that Singh has been in custody since September 2020, after the challan was presented on February, 2021 and charges framed in August, 2021, only 01 prosecution witness out of the 20 cited, has been examined till date. Hence, there is "no likelihood that the trial would conclude any time soon."

He further argued that it has been contended that the petitioner could not be made to languish in custody for reasons attributable only to the prosecution and the prosecution alone, moreso since the prosecution witnesses, who in the case in hand, are all official witnesses, had not been appearing during trial to get their evidence recorded.