The Jammu and Kashmir High Court’s recent judgement highlighting the pitfalls of flawed investigations in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) cases is a wake-up call for law enforcement agencies and the judiciary. The Division Bench has raised serious concerns about the cavalier approach in handling NDPS cases, often leading to the acquittal of accused persons. This verdict underscores the urgent need for systematic reforms in investigating and prosecuting drug-related offences to uphold justice and combat the alarming rise in drug abuse.
The Court’s observations resonate with the growing societal menace of drug addiction, especially among the youth. The increasing seizure of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances reflects a grave threat to public health and safety. Adolescents and students, regardless of gender, are particularly vulnerable to this scourge, which has reached critical levels in recent years. The ripple effects of drug addiction are devastating, eroding the social fabric and endangering future generations.
The High Court’s criticism of casual and unscientific investigations is not unfounded. Many NDPS cases falter in court due to procedural lapses, incompetence, and non-adherence to the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. These failures are exacerbated by the practice of entrusting investigations to officers lacking the requisite expertise and experience. Under the Act, only officers above the rank of Sub-Inspector are authorised to investigate such cases. Yet, this mandate is often ignored, resulting in botched investigations that fail to withstand judicial scrutiny. The court’s emphasis on adherence to mandatory provisions, such as Sections 42, 50, 52 and 57 of the Act, is crucial. These sections lay down the procedures for search, seizure and reporting, which form the backbone of a legally sound investigation. Any deviation from these requirements undermines the prosecution’s case and leads to acquittals, as seen in the current instance where the trial court’s verdict of acquittal was upheld.
The NDPS Act provides for a reversal of the burden of proof under Section 54, a departure from the general principle of criminal jurisprudence that presumes innocence until proven guilty. However, this provision does not absolve the prosecution of its duty to establish a prima facie case. The foundational facts must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before the burden shifts to the accused. In the absence of cogent and trustworthy evidence, as highlighted in the present case, the presumptive provisions lose their significance, resulting in acquittals.
One of the court’s notable observations is the lack of professionalism in handling NDPS cases. Investigative agencies must approach these cases with the seriousness they warrant. The Government’s efforts, such as the issuance of SOPs by the Jammu and Kashmir Home Department, are commendable but insufficient if not implemented rigorously. It is important to authorise experienced and competent officers from departments such as Central Excise, Narcotics, Customs, Revenue Intelligence and Police to handle NDPS cases. These officers must be specifically trained to ensure investigations are thorough, scientific and compliant with the law.
The failure of investigative agencies in NDPS cases erodes public trust in the criminal justice system. A sense of insecurity prevails when genuine cases collapse due to procedural flaws. The High Court’s judgement serves as a reminder that casual investigations are violations of justice that embolden drug traffickers and exacerbate societal harm. The observations must serve as a timely call for immediate reforms in the investigation and prosecution of NDPS cases. Addressing these systemic issues requires a multi-pronged approach. Leveraging forensic science and technology in drug seizure and analysis can strengthen the evidentiary foundation of cases. Simultaneously, officers conducting flawed investigations must be held accountable to deter negligence and incompetence. Courts must ensure strict compliance with procedural requirements and discourage any leniency in cases of blatant lapses. The onus lies on the Government and investigative agencies to act decisively and uphold the sanctity of the law. Failing to do so is not an option when the stakes are so high.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
