By Advocate Tarun Gaur, Practicing in Delhi High Court
In a welcome development, the judgments in Mangilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Simarnjit Singh v. State of Punjab underscore a foundational principle of our criminal jurisprudence — no matter how stringent the law, procedural fairness is non-negotiable.
Both appellants were initially convicted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), a special legislation designed to combat drug-related offences with a heavy hand. The Act is known for its harsh sentencing provisions, reverse burden of proof, and limited scope for bail — making it essential that every procedural safeguard be followed with unwavering precision.
In Mangilal’s case, the prosecution faltered due to hostile witnesses, non-compliance with Section 52A (regarding the disposal of seized contraband), and key police testimony revealing pre-existing seized materials — all of which went unchallenged by the prosecution. The higher court rightly refused to overlook these glaring lapses and acquitted the accused.
Similarly, in Simarnjit Singh’s matter, the Court relied on the precedent in Union of India v. Mohanlal & Anr. to hold that sampling of seized narcotics must be done in the presence of a Magistrate. Since this wasn’t followed, the authenticity of the evidence was questionable, leading to the reversal of the conviction.
My Opinion
I strongly believe that both these decisions are not only legally sound but also vital to preserving the integrity of our criminal justice system. The courts have rightly reminded all stakeholders — especially investigating agencies — that stringent laws cannot override procedural due process.
These judgments reaffirm the age-old maxim: “Let a hundred guilty go unpunished, but one innocent should not suffer.” In the context of special legislations like the NDPS Act, where accused persons face severe consequences right from the point of arrest, judicial oversight becomes all the more crucial.
Such decisions are much needed to:
-
Prevent misuse or abuse of special statutes,
-
Ensure evidence is collected and preserved lawfully, and
-
Uphold the constitutional mandate of a fair trial.
In essence, the judiciary has acted as the true sentinel on the qui vive — reminding us that the rule of law must prevail, even in the face of serious offences.