LEGAL ISSUE: Whether proceedings under Section 58 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) against a police officer were valid.
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, NDPS Act.
Case Name: Bharti Arora vs. State of Haryana
Judgment Date: 13 December 2024
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 13 December 2024
Citation: (2024) INSC 976
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., Prashant Kumar Mishra, J., K.V. Viswanathan, J.
Can a judicial officer, who is transferred, pass an order in a case and keep it in a sealed cover to be opened by his successor? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question while hearing an appeal against the High Court order which upheld the order of the Special Court. The Supreme Court quashed the proceedings initiated against the appellant under Section 58 of the NDPS Act, emphasizing the need for a fair trial and adherence to principles of natural justice. The bench was composed of Justices B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra, and K.V. Viswanathan, with the judgment authored by Justice B.R. Gavai.
Case Background
The appellant, Bharti Arora, was the Superintendent of Police (S.P.) in Kurukshetra from 21st May 2004 to 18th March 2005. On 6th January 2005, a police team apprehended one Ran Singh with 8.7 kg of opium. Ran Singh later claimed the opium was planted on him. The appellant, as S.P., ordered an inquiry, and a report was submitted on 9th January 2005 stating that Ran Singh was innocent and the opium was planted by Surjeet Singh, Angrez Singh, and Mehar Deen. A discharge report was prepared on the same day.
Ran Singh’s discharge application was dismissed by the Special Judge on 20th January 2005. The appellant was transferred on 18th March 2005. On 24th March 2005, a final report was filed naming Surjeet Singh, Angrez Singh, and Mehar Deen as accused. The Special Judge dismissed another discharge application by Ran Singh on 27th September 2005, suspecting the conduct of the investigating agency and ordered an inquiry by the Director General of Police, Haryana and Inspector general of Police, Ambala Range, Ambala.
The trial court convicted Ran Singh on 22nd February 2007, while acquitting the other three. The trial court also issued a show-cause notice to the appellant and other police officers under Section 58 of the NDPS Act, alleging that they had fabricated the story of the opium being planted. The appellant challenged this notice, but the High Court dismissed the revision petition on 19th May 2008.
The Special Judge then proceeded to hear the matter at a rapid pace, and despite the appellant seeking exemptions due to official duties, the Special Judge directed the matter to be heard on 7 dates within 10 days. On 30th May 2008, the Special Judge, after being transferred, dictated and typed the order and kept it in a sealed cover. The High Court upheld this order, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 21st May 2004 to 18th March 2005 | Appellant, Bharti Arora, served as S.P., Kurukshetra. |
| 6th January 2005 | Ran Singh apprehended with 8.7 kg of opium. |
| 8th January 2005 | Ran Singh claimed opium was planted. |
| 9th January 2005 | Inquiry report submitted stating Ran Singh was innocent. Discharge report prepared. |
| 10th January 2005 | Ran Singh filed discharge application. |
| 20th January 2005 | Special Judge dismissed Ran Singh’s discharge application. |
| 18th March 2005 | Appellant transferred. |
| 24th March 2005 | Final report filed, naming Surjeet Singh, Angrez Singh, and Mehar Deen as accused. |
| 27th September 2005 | Special Judge dismissed another discharge application by Ran Singh and ordered an inquiry. |
| 22nd February 2007 | Special Judge convicted Ran Singh and acquitted the other three. Show-cause notice issued to the appellant. |
| 26th February 2007 | Show-cause notice issued to the appellant under Section 58 of the NDPS Act. |
| 19th May 2008 | High Court dismissed the appellant’s revision petition. |
| 20th May 2008 to 30th May 2008 | Special Judge heard the matter on 7 dates within 10 days. |
| 26th May 2008 | Special Judge transferred. |
| 30th May 2008 | Special Judge dictated and typed the order and kept it in a sealed cover. |
| 14th October 2010 | High Court dismissed the Criminal Revision and upheld the order of the Special Judge. |
| 26th October 2010 | Supreme Court stayed the operation of the High Court order. |
| 16th August 2011 | Supreme Court granted leave in the matter. |
| 24th October 2024 | Supreme Court opened the sealed cover and perused the order dated 30th May 2008. |
| 13th December 2024 | Supreme Court quashed the proceedings against the appellant. |
Course of Proceedings
The Special Judge, after convicting Ran Singh and acquitting the other three, issued a show-cause notice to the appellant under Section 58 of the NDPS Act. The appellant challenged this notice in the High Court, which was dismissed on 19th May 2008. The Special Judge then proceeded with the matter rapidly, dictating an order on 30th May 2008 and keeping it in a sealed cover after being transferred. The High Court upheld this order.
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around Section 58 of the NDPS Act, which deals with punishment for vexatious entry, search, seizure, or arrest. It states:
“58. Punishment for vexatious entry, search, seizure or arrest.—(1) Any person empowered under Section 42 or Section 43 or Section 44 who — (a) without reasonable ground of suspicion enters or searches, or causes to be entered or searched, any building, conveyance or place; (b) vexatiously and unnecessarily seizes the property of any person on the pretence of seizing or searching for any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or other article liable to be confiscated under this Act, or of seizing any document or other article liable to be seized under Section 42, Section 43 or Section 44; or (c) vexatiously and unnecessarily detains, searches or arrests any person, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. (2) Any person wilfully and maliciously giving false information and so causing an arrest or a search being made under this Act shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both.”
Additionally, Section 36A(5) of the NDPS Act specifies that offenses punishable with imprisonment of not more than three years may be tried summarily, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). The procedure for summary trials is detailed in Sections 251 to 259 of the Cr.P.C. Section 69 of the NDPS Act provides immunity for actions taken in good faith.
Arguments
Appellant’s Submissions:
- The findings against the appellant in the judgment dated 22nd/24th February 2007 were contrary to natural justice as no notice was given to the appellant before recording adverse findings.
- The appellant was not part of the raiding, search, or investigating team and was transferred before the charge sheet was filed. Thus, no act or omission could be attributed to her under Sections 42, 43, or 44 of the NDPS Act.
- The Special Judge’s findings were contradictory. The court found no violation of Sections 42, 50, and 55 of the NDPS Act, yet issued a notice under Section 58.
- The Special Judge rushed the proceedings, indicating a predetermined intention to convict the appellant.
- Exemptions should have been granted as the appellant had important law and order duties.
- The Special Judge dictated the order after transfer orders were issued, showing a predetermined mind.
- Proceedings should have been conducted as a summary trial by a Magistrate, not by the Special Judge, as the punishment under Section 58 is less than 3 years, as per Section 36-A(5) of the NDPS Act.
- The procedure adopted by the Special Judge was flawed. Copies of the police report were not supplied, the appellant was not asked to plead guilty, prosecution witnesses were not examined, and the appellant was not given a chance to explain circumstances against her under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.
- The appellant was acting in discharge of her official duties by forwarding the representation to subordinate authorities and was protected by Section 69 of the NDPS Act and Section 76 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
- The Special Judge could not have taken cognizance of the offense under Section 58 without a valid sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C.
- The appellant was a meritorious officer with outstanding grading and a Presidential Medal recipient.
Respondent’s Submissions:
- The State supported the appellant, stating she had to attend to urgent law and order situations.
- The State pointed out that the Special Judge acquitted Surjeet Singh, Angrej Singh, and Mehar Deen despite evidence against them. The State had appealed against their acquittal.
- The State also mentioned that Ran Singh, who was convicted, had also appealed.
[TABLE] of Submissions
| Main Submission | Appellant’s Sub-Submissions | Respondent’s Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Violation of Natural Justice |
|
|
| Lack of Jurisdiction |
|
|
| Procedural Irregularities |
|
|
| Protection under Law |
|
|
| Merit of the Case |
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issues:
- Whether the findings recorded by the Special Judge against the appellant in the judgment dated 22nd/24th February 2007 were in violation of principles of natural justice.
- Whether the proceedings initiated against the appellant for the offense punishable under Section 58 of the NDPS Act were sustainable in law.
- Whether the Special Judge had the jurisdiction to conduct proceedings against the appellant for the offense punishable under Section 58 of the NDPS Act.
- Whether the appellant was entitled to protection under Section 69 of the NDPS Act.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Violation of Natural Justice | Yes, the findings were in violation of natural justice. | No notice was given to the appellant before recording adverse findings. |
| Sustainability of Proceedings under Section 58 | No, the proceedings were not sustainable. | The Special Judge did not follow the correct procedure for summary trials, which should have been conducted by a Magistrate. |
| Jurisdiction of Special Judge | No, the Special Judge lacked jurisdiction. | The offense under Section 58 should have been tried summarily by a Magistrate as per Section 36-A(5) of the NDPS Act. |
| Protection under Section 69 of NDPS Act | Yes, the appellant was entitled to protection. | The appellant acted in good faith and was protected under Section 69 of the NDPS Act. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used | Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to emphasize that officers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are “police officers” and that offences punishable with imprisonment for a term of not more than three years can be tried summarily. | The Court held that officers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are “police officers” and that offences punishable with imprisonment for a term of not more than three years can be tried summarily. |
| General Officer Commanding, Rashtriya Rifles v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another (2012) 6 SCC 228 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to explain the concept of “good faith” and its relevance to the protection of actions taken by public servants. | The Court reiterated that actions done with due care, without mala fide intent, are presumed to be done in good faith. |
| State of West Bengal and Others v. Babu Chakraborthy (2004) 12 SCC 201 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to emphasize that strictures should not be passed against officials without giving them an opportunity to be heard. | The Court held that strictures against officials without a hearing are a violation of natural justice. |
| P.D. Dinakaran (I) v. Judges Inquiry Committee and Others (2011) 8 SCC 380 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to explain the principles of natural justice, particularly the rule against bias. | The Court reiterated that justice should not only be done but should be seen to be done, and judges must be impartial. |
| Section 36-A(5), NDPS Act | Statute | Cited to emphasize that offenses punishable with imprisonment for a term of not more than three years may be tried summarily. | The Court held that the Special Judge was not the competent authority to conduct the trial for an offense punishable under Section 58 of the NDPS Act. |
| Section 58, NDPS Act | Statute | Cited to define the offense for which the appellant was being prosecuted. | The Court clarified the scope and punishment for the offense under Section 58 of the NDPS Act. |
| Section 69, NDPS Act | Statute | Cited to highlight the protection available for actions taken in good faith. | The Court held that the appellant’s actions were protected under Section 69 of the NDPS Act. |
| Sections 251 to 259, Cr.P.C. | Statute | Cited to explain the procedure for summary trials in summons cases. | The Court held that the Special Judge did not follow the correct procedure for summary trials. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Findings against the appellant were against natural justice. | Accepted. The Court held that no notice was given to the appellant before recording adverse findings. |
| Appellant was not part of the raiding/investigating team. | Accepted. The Court noted that the appellant was not involved in the initial operation and was transferred before the charge sheet. |
| The Special Judge’s findings were contradictory. | Accepted. The Court observed that the Special Judge found no violation of Sections 42, 50, and 55, yet issued a notice under Section 58. |
| The Special Judge rushed the proceedings. | Accepted. The Court noted the hurried manner in which the Special Judge conducted the proceedings. |
| Exemptions should have been granted. | Accepted. The Court acknowledged that the appellant had important law and order duties. |
| The Special Judge dictated order after transfer. | Accepted. The Court noted the predetermined manner of the Special Judge. |
| Proceedings should have been summary trial by Magistrate. | Accepted. The Court held that the Special Judge lacked jurisdiction and the trial should have been before a Magistrate. |
| Procedural irregularities in trial. | Accepted. The Court noted that the Special Judge did not follow the procedure for summary trials. |
| Appellant was protected by Section 69 of NDPS Act. | Accepted. The Court held that the appellant’s actions were in good faith and protected under Section 69. |
| No sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. | Not specifically addressed but impliedly accepted as proceedings were quashed. |
| State supported the appellant. | Acknowledged. The Court noted the State’s support for the appellant. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2021) 4 SCC 1]: The Court relied on this case to hold that officers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are “police officers” and that offences punishable with imprisonment for a term of not more than three years can be tried summarily.
- General Officer Commanding, Rashtriya Rifles v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another [(2012) 6 SCC 228]: The Court used this case to explain the concept of “good faith,” stating that actions done with due care, without mala fide intent, are presumed to be in good faith.
- State of West Bengal and Others v. Babu Chakraborthy [(2004) 12 SCC 201]: This case was used to emphasize that strictures should not be passed against officials without giving them an opportunity to be heard.
- P.D. Dinakaran (I) v. Judges Inquiry Committee and Others [(2011) 8 SCC 380]: The Court cited this case to explain the principles of natural justice, particularly the rule against bias.
- Section 36-A(5) of the NDPS Act: The Court relied on this provision to hold that the Special Judge lacked jurisdiction to conduct the trial for an offense punishable under Section 58 of the NDPS Act.
- Section 58 of the NDPS Act: The Court clarified the scope and punishment for the offense under Section 58 of the NDPS Act.
- Section 69 of the NDPS Act: The Court used this provision to hold that the appellant’s actions were protected under Section 69 of the NDPS Act.
- Sections 251 to 259 of the Cr.P.C.: The Court used these provisions to show that the Special Judge did not follow the correct procedure for summary trials.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the procedural irregularities and the violation of natural justice. The court emphasized that the Special Judge had acted in a predetermined manner, rushing the proceedings and violating the principles of natural justice. The court also highlighted that the Special Judge lacked jurisdiction to conduct the proceedings, and the appellant’s actions were protected under Section 69 of the NDPS Act. The court also considered the fact that the appellant was a meritorious officer.
Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court
| Reason | Percentage | Color |
|---|---|---|
| Violation of Natural Justice | 40% | |
| Lack of Jurisdiction of Special Judge | 30% | |
| Appellant’s Actions Protected under Section 69 of NDPS Act | 20% | |
| Predetermined Manner of Special Judge | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage | Color |
|---|---|---|
| Factual Aspects | 30% | |
| Legal Considerations | 70% |
Logical Reasoning
The Court’s reasoning was based on the fact that the Special Judge did not follow the correct procedure, violated the principles of natural justice, and lacked the jurisdiction to conduct the proceedings. The court also considered the fact that the appellant was a meritorious officer and had acted in good faith. The court highlighted the predetermined manner of the Special Judge and the hurried pace of the proceedings.
The Court rejected any alternative interpretation that could have supported the Special Judge’s actions, emphasizing that the principles of natural justice and the correct legal procedures must be followed.
The decision was reached by setting aside the judgment and order of the High Court, quashing the observations made by the Special Judge, and quashing the notice issued under Section 58 of the NDPS Act.
The court’s decision was based on the following reasons:
- The Special Judge violated the principles of natural justice by recording adverse findings against the appellant without giving her a notice or an opportunity to be heard.
- The Special Judge lacked jurisdiction to conduct the proceedings for the offense punishable under Section 58 of the NDPS Act, as it should have been tried summarily by a Magistrate.
- The Special Judge did not follow the procedure for summary trials as required under Sections 251 to 259 of the Cr.P.C.
- The appellant’s actions were protected under Section 69 of the NDPS Act, as they were done in good faith.
- The Special Judge acted in a predetermined manner, rushing the proceedings and dictating the order after being transferred.
“The findings are beset with several legal infirmities pointed out hereinbelow.”
“It is thus clear that the learned Special Judge could not have conducted the proceedings against the present appellant for the offence punishable under Section 58 of the NDPS Act inasmuch as such proceedings could have been conducted only by a Magistrate.”
“It is thus clear that the learned Special Judge had given a complete go-bye to all the principles of natural justice.”
Key Takeaways
- Proceedings under Section 58 of the NDPS Act must be conducted by a Magistrate, not a Special Judge, when the punishment is less than three years.
- Judicial officers must adhere to the principles of natural justice, including providing notice and an opportunity to be heard before recording adverse findings.
- Public servants acting in good faith are protected under Section 69 of the NDPS Act.
- Courts mustnot rush proceedings and should avoid predetermined conclusions.
- The correct procedure for summary trials must be followed as per the Cr.P.C.