Police Officials Cannot Be Prosecuted After NDPS Acquittal Without Preliminary Inquiry and Government Sanction: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Name: ASI Joga Singh & Others v. Manmohan Singh

Date of Judgment: 08 June 2026

Citation: CRA-S-4184-SB-2017

Bench: Justice N.S. Shekhawat

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that police officials cannot be prosecuted merely because an accused was acquitted in an NDPS case, particularly when the trial court had not recorded any finding of fabrication, false implication, or misconduct against the investigating officials. The Court further held that after disposal of the main criminal trial, the trial court became functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to entertain a subsequent application seeking prosecution of police officials. The Court also emphasized that prosecution of public servants for acts connected with official duties requires compliance with the safeguards under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C.

Summary: The appeal arose from an order passed by the Special Court, Ludhiana directing initiation of criminal proceedings against several police officials under Section 58 of the NDPS Act and Section 195 IPC on the basis of an application filed by an accused who had earlier been acquitted in an NDPS case. The applicant alleged that he had been falsely implicated, illegally detained, and that the case property had been planted upon him by the police.

The respondent had faced trial in FIR No. 159 dated 12.09.2011 under Sections 15/61/85 of the NDPS Act. However, the Special Court acquitted him on 11.07.2013 after granting the benefit of doubt because the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt and certain deficiencies existed in the prosecution evidence.

Nearly six months after his acquittal, the respondent filed an application seeking criminal action against the investigating police officials and compensation for alleged harassment. Acting upon the application, the trial court ultimately directed initiation of criminal proceedings against the police personnel.

Justice N.S. Shekhawat observed that the judgment of acquittal did not contain any finding that the police officials had fabricated evidence, planted contraband, or deliberately implicated the respondent in a false case. The acquittal was based merely on deficiencies in proof and the extension of benefit of doubt. Consequently, the acquittal itself could not be treated as evidence of police misconduct.

The Court further held that once the main NDPS trial had concluded, the trial court became functus officio and could not reopen the matter by entertaining a fresh application seeking prosecution of the officials involved in the concluded proceedings. Relying upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa, the Court reiterated that criminal courts do not possess an inherent power of review after final disposal of proceedings.

The High Court also found that the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. had not been followed. Before directing prosecution under Section 195 Cr.P.C., the court was required to form an opinion that such prosecution was expedient in the interests of justice and, if necessary, conduct a preliminary inquiry. No such satisfaction was properly recorded and no material existed to indicate that the police officials had knowingly fabricated evidence.

Another significant aspect highlighted by the Court was that all the appellants were public servants acting in the course of their official duties. In such circumstances, prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. constituted an important statutory safeguard. Since no sanction had been obtained before directing prosecution, the proceedings suffered from a fundamental legal defect.

Decision: Allowing the appeal, the Punjab & Haryana High Court quashed the order passed by the Special Court, Ludhiana directing prosecution of the police officials. The Court also quashed the consequential complaint titled State through Dilbagh Singh Johal v. ASI Joga Singh and Others and all proceedings arising therefrom, holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to initiate such proceedings after conclusion of the trial and had failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Sections 340 and 197 Cr.P.C.