Mother’s CCTV Images Fail To Show Son Or Police; P&H HC Rejects Fresh Probe In Alprazolam Case

In brief

The question

Whether the material relied on by the petitioner established exceptional circumstances warranting de novo or re-investigation under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023

The court held

The Court answered the issues against the petitioner, holding that the material did not disclose exceptional circumstances warranting de novo or re-investigation by a special investigating team.

It also directed

The petition was dismissed, and all pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of

01Facts

The petitioner sought de novo/re-investigation under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, into an NDPS case against her son, who was charged under Sections 22(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act after 600 Alprazolam tablets were allegedly recovered from his car.

¶ 1

The charge-sheet had been filed and the matter was pending before the trial court. An earlier petition had been withdrawn with liberty to file afresh with better particulars

¶ 1–4

02Issues

i.Whether the material relied on by the petitioner established exceptional circumstances warranting de novo or re-investigation under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023

¶ 6, 8–10

ii.Whether the CCTV material provided a sufficient basis to find, even prima facie, that the investigation was tainted, biased or unfair

¶ 8–10

03Law Applied

Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 preserves the High Court’s inherent power to order re-investigation, including after a final report has been filed; however, that power must be exercised sparingly and with great circumspection.

¶ 5–6

Relying on Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali @ Deepak, the Court reiterated that fresh investigation is a plenary but exceptional remedy, to be ordered only where the unfairness is so serious that it pricks the judicial conscience

¶ 7

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 22 Section 29

04Reasoning

The CCTV images showed a vehicle at different locations, but did not reveal its occupants, establish that the petitioner’s son was driving, or show that a CIA officer had stopped him or directed him to follow a police vehicle.

¶ 9–10

The footage therefore did not support even a prima facie conclusion that the investigation was tainted or that refusal to order re-investigation would cause injustice. The allegations and material did not meet the exceptional threshold for exercising the Court’s inherent power

¶ 9–10

05Holding

The Court answered the issues against the petitioner, holding that the material did not disclose exceptional circumstances warranting de novo or re-investigation by a special investigating team.

¶ 10–11

The petition was dismissed, and all pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of

¶ 10–11

LawLens.Punjab and Haryana High Court

Original Court PDF