NDPS Act 1985 Supreme Court judgment
Mohan Lal v State of Punjab case summary
reverse burden of proof NDPS Act
same officer informant and investigator NDPS
procedural lapses in narcotics investigation India
Case Summary: Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab
Citation: (2018) 17 SCC 627 | AIR 2018 SC 3853
Date of Decision: 16 August 2018
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice R. Banumathi, Justice Navin Sinha
Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1880 of 2011
[Judgment Source] https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?docid=2362736
Law Points Raised:
- Whether the same officer can act as both the informant and the investigating officer in NDPS cases.
- Impact of procedural lapses in handling narcotics evidence, including delay in sending samples and storage protocols.
- Interpretation of Sections 35, 54, and 55 of the NDPS Act, 1985 regarding presumption and safe custody.
- Compliance with Standing Orders and guidelines issued by Narcotics Control Bureau for seizure and storage.
- Applicability of reverse burden of proof in NDPS Act vis-à-vis fair investigation principles under Article 21.
Ratio Decidendi:
- Fair investigation is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and is vital even under the NDPS Act.
- The same person acting as both complainant and investigator creates doubt in the investigation’s fairness.
- Non-compliance with Standing Orders and delay in dispatching samples to the lab undermines evidentiary integrity.
- Safe custody of seized narcotics is mandatory; failure to deposit in the malkhana and lack of explanation renders the recovery suspect.
- Reverse burden under Sections 35 and 54 does not override the duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Ruling:
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of the appellant, holding that the investigation was fundamentally flawed. The Court emphasized that procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act must be strictly followed, and the accused cannot be convicted solely on presumptions without a fair investigation. The appeal was allowed.
Key Paragraph References:
- 1–2 – Background of FIR and recovery process
- 3–4 – Arguments by both sides regarding procedural lapses and presumptions
- 5–7 – Court’s analysis on fairness and role conflict in investigation
- 8–9 – Interpretation of Section 55 and Standing Orders from NCB
- 10 – Scope and rebuttability of reverse burden of proof under Sections 35 and 54