Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits NDPS Accused in 320 Kg Poppy Husk Case; Failure to Establish Identity of Alleged Fleeing Accused Renders Conviction Unsustainable

Case Name: Surinder Pal v. State of Punjab

Date of Judgment: 30 October 2026

Citation: CRA-S-574-SB-2004

Bench: Justice Surya Partap Singh

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a conviction under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, cannot be sustained where the prosecution fails to establish beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the accused as the person allegedly travelling in the vehicle carrying contraband. The Court found the Investigating Officer’s uncorroborated testimony regarding identification unreliable in the peculiar circumstances of the case, particularly when the independent witness did not support the prosecution, other material witnesses were not examined, and discrepancies existed regarding the accused’s identity.

Summary: The appeal arose from the conviction of Surinder Pal under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, whereby he was sentenced to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1 lakh following the alleged recovery of 320 kg of poppy husk from a Maruti van. The prosecution alleged that the appellant had fled from the vehicle when intercepted by the police.

The High Court observed that the prosecution had failed to establish that the appellant was the person who escaped from the vehicle. The incident occurred around 8:00 PM, and the Court found serious doubt regarding the Investigating Officer’s ability to identify a person fleeing from the rear of the vehicle in darkness. Significantly, the FIR identified the fleeing person as “Chhinda”, son of Boori, whereas the appellant was Surinder Pal alias Chhinda, son of Chain Ram, who was apprehended approximately seven months later.

The Court further noted that the independent witness associated with the recovery was not examined by the prosecution and, appearing as a defence witness, denied that any recovery had taken place in his presence. Other police officials who could have corroborated the identification were also not examined. Considering these deficiencies cumulatively, the Court held that the prosecution evidence was insufficient to establish the appellant’s identity and guilt.

Decision: The High Court allowed the criminal appeal, set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28 February 2004, and acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 15 of the NDPS Act.