Second Trial on Same Recovery Violates Double Jeopardy: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Drugs Act Complaint

Case Name: Om Parkash v. State of Haryana

Date of Judgment: 07 March 2026

Citation: CRM-M No.22157 of 2023

Bench: Justice Surya Partap Singh

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that once an accused has already been acquitted in a trial where the alleged recovery of contraband and medicines was disbelieved, a subsequent prosecution based on the same recovery under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act cannot be sustained. Such a second trial violates the protection against double jeopardy under Article 20 of the Constitution and Section 300 CrPC.

Summary: The petition was filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, which had held that a prima facie case existed for framing charges against the petitioner under Sections 28, 27(b)(ii) and 28-B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

The case originated from an incident dated 31.08.2015 when police officials allegedly received secret information that the petitioner was carrying narcotic substances. Acting upon the information, the police apprehended the petitioner and allegedly recovered narcotic drugs, currency notes, and certain medicines from a polythene bag. During the investigation process, the petitioner allegedly fled from the spot. Consequently, two FIRs were registered against him one under Section 22 of the NDPS Act and another under Sections 224, 225, 420 IPC and Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The petitioner contended before the High Court that he had already faced trial for the same recovery before the Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula. In that trial, the Court had acquitted him after concluding that the prosecution had failed to prove the recovery of narcotic substances or medicines from his possession. Since the issue of recovery had already been adjudicated, the petitioner argued that a second prosecution on the same facts amounted to double jeopardy.

The State opposed the petition by arguing that although the incident of recovery was common, the offences fell under two different statutes the NDPS Act and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and therefore separate prosecutions were permissible.

After examining the record, the High Court observed that in the earlier trial arising from FIR No.175 dated 01.09.2015, the Additional Sessions Judge had framed two key issues: whether narcotic drugs were recovered from the petitioner without licence and whether allopathic medicines were found in his possession without valid authorization. Both issues were answered against the prosecution after evaluating the evidence, leading to the petitioner’s acquittal.

The Court further noted that the complaint under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act was based on the same alleged recovery effected by police officials. The Drug Inspector had not personally recovered the medicines; rather, he was called later to the police station to complete formalities relating to seizure and testing. Therefore, the success of the complaint depended entirely upon proving the same recovery that had already been disbelieved by the trial court.

The High Court held that once the earlier judgment had attained finality and had conclusively rejected the prosecution story regarding recovery of contraband and medicines, a subsequent complaint founded on the same factual allegations could not succeed. Continuing such a trial would amount to a futile exercise.

The Court also emphasized that the alleged recovery constituted a single incident and the petitioner had already been tried for offences arising from that occurrence. Initiating another prosecution for the same act under a different statute would violate the constitutional protection against double jeopardy under Article 20(2) as well as the statutory bar contained in Section 300 CrPC.

Additionally, the Court observed that filing a complaint relating to the same incident after submission of a police report under Section 173 CrPC was also contrary to the scheme of Section 210 CrPC.

Decision: The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the complaint filed by the Drug Control Officer, along with the summoning order and the impugned order directing framing of charges against the petitioner.