"Cannot Shut Eyes Towards Defective Investigation": Rajasthan HC Directs Further Investigation In NDPS Case Involving Possession Of A Cough Syrup
The Rajasthan High Court directed further investigation in a case centred around the possession of a hundred bottles of Chlorpheniramine maleate codeine phsphae syrup (cough syrup) underlining concerns over unfair investigation so far.
The Court granted bail to the accused arrested under Sections 8, 21, and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) after noting that “it is clear that fair investigation has not been done and prima facie, it is established that police acted in the partial manner to shield real culprits therefore, in these circumstances, this matter is required to be further investigated.”
A Single Bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman observed, “It is settled proposition of law that if at any time, when the defective investigation comes to light during the course of any trial or inquiry then, same may be cured by directing further investigation and for this purpose, any appropriate writ or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India…may be issued and in the present case, unfair/biased investigation is apparent from the conduct of the I.O.”
Advocate Kapil Gupta represented the petitioner, while P.P. M.K. Sheoran appeared for the respondent.
The accused had filed a second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. after he was arrested following the registration of an FIR on charges relating to the alleged possession of a hundred bottles of Monocoff Plus Syrup, which are officially prohibited for distribution.
The accused had argued that he was a qualified pharmacist running a pharmacy and he was wrongly implicated in the said case. It was contended that the accused had purchased the syrup before the notification, in line with his business operations, but hadn't sold any post-ban.
Considering that the accused had a requisite certificate and drug license to run the medical store, The Court noted that the accused had not disposed of or sold even a single bottle of the drug in question, which he purchased through bills.
The Bench pointed out that a fair and proper investigation has not been conducted in the matter since the investigating officer had not considered the important evidence such as CCTV footage and bills produced by the father of the accused.
“This Court being a constitutional court cannot shut his eyes towards defective investigation, which can/should be cured by directing further investigation in the matter. This Court cannot ignore the shortcomings of the investigation, pointed out by the petitioner's counsel,” the Court remarked.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the second bail application.
Cause Title: Mukesh Kumar Khedar v. State of Rajasthan (Neutral Citation: 2024:RJ-JP:17913)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Kapil Gupta, Om Prakash Kharra, Nidhi Sharma, Chitransh Saxena and Adarsh Singhal
Respondent: P.P. M.K. Sheoran
