NDPS–Independent Witness
Non Joining of Local Person–Rather a person who had a shop near the police station was included–Serious doubt about whether the witness was truly independent–Acquittal
NDPS–Search and Seizure–Form No. 29 shows that the samples were numbered 1 to 4 but these numbers do not appear in the recovery memo or rukka–Acquittal
(A) Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, S.15–Independent Witness–Stock Witness–Non Joining of Local Person–Investigating Officer admitted that no effort was to made to include any local person from where the recovery was made–Rather a person who had a shop near the police station and who already known to head constable was included–Thus, there is serious doubt about whether the witness was truly independent–Accused acquittal. (Para 19)
(B) Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, S.15–Independent Witness–Won Over Witness–Independent Witness deposed that he was not present at the recovery site and had seen the accused for the first time in the Court–He also stated that the police had taken his signatures on blank papers at the police station–Prosecution case was based substantially on testimony of independent witness who had been clearly won over by the accused–Benefit of doubt extended–Accused acquitted. (Para 18)
(C) Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, S.52–Search and Seizure–Discrepancy in Samples Taken–Form No. 29 shows that the samples were numbered 1 to 4 but these numbers do not appear in the recovery memo or rukka– This makes it unclear which sample came from which bag–Also, the samples were not marked as original or duplicate, raising questions about their reliability–Appellant acquitted. (Para 20)
State of Punjab vs. Leela Singh : 2025 Law Herald Online 1315: 2025 (3) Law Herald (P&H) 2432