The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently overturned the conviction of an individual in a drug case, citing that the prosecution had failed to disclose crucial details regarding an objection raised by a Forensic Science Lab (FSL) to the trial court.

Justice Pankaj Jain emphasized that an investigating agency is obligated to transparently present all proceedings to the Court. Their duty lies in investigating the crime rather than solely focusing on securing the punishment of the accused. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the fairness of the trial necessitates that the accused be fully informed of all circumstances against them.

The Court emphasized the critical importance of sampling and forensic reports in trials involving narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Consequently, the Court noted that when an objection arises from the Forensic Science Lab (FSL), it becomes the prosecution's responsibility to transparently disclose all pertinent information.

“Concealment of this vital fact from the accused is fatal to the prosecution and defeats the whole object of the fair trial,” said the Court.

In the current case, Zorawar Singh, also known as Shenty, along with a co-accused, was convicted by a court in Patiala in 2016 under the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act following the purported seizure of illicit drugs. Zorawar Singh was handed a three-year prison sentence as a result.

During the consideration of Singh's appeal against his conviction, the High Court noted that Section 22 (pertaining to punishment for contravention related to psychotropic substances) of the NDPS Act was pre-emptively mentioned in all case-related documents. This observation led the Court to infer that the Investigating Officer (IO) was aware of the offense for which the accused were to be charged even before their booking.

“The I.O. being in the knowledge of the charging section even prior to recovery of the contraband at the time he obtained consent of the suspect does not augur well with the fairness expected from the prosecution,” the Court said.

However, the Court identified a significant oversight in that the Investigating Officer (IO) had failed to disclose an objection raised by a Forensic Science Lab (FSL) against the sample submitted to it by the investigating agency.

“The said objection has been kept under wraps. The prosecution opted not to reveal the nature of the objection(s) raised by the Forensic Lab. I.O. remains secretive even while deposition.”

It thus concluded that Singh had not been tried fairly and acquitted him.

Advocate Saurabh Kapoor represented the appellant.

Additional Advocate General Kunal Vinayak represented the State.