Taking strong note of the same, the Home Secretaries of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh have been directed to file affidavits to explain the reason for non-compliance of Punjab and Haryana High Court orders and provisions and disobedience of amendment laid down in the NDPS Act.

The amendment provides powers to police officers to dispose of the seized contraband than to keep it inside police stations to avoid its misuse. The amendment in the Act was made in the year 1989. Moreover, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on September 6 2002, while deciding a criminal appeal in a NDPS Act, had given clear directions to the three states to make use of the amendment, allowing police officials to dispose off seized contraband before the trial comes to an end.

The directions were passed by the High Court in wake of a petition filed by an accused booked under the NDPS Act seeking acquittal. The counsel for the accused had taken the ground that till date the police officials of the three states were not complying with the High Court directions. Taking serious note of this, the court directed the Home Secretaries to file affidavits to explain the reason for non-compliance. 

The counsel for the accused had alleged the procedure laid down under Section 52-A of NDPS was not being followed and contrabands were being kept in police stations, facilitating serious abuse of law.

The High Court had passed directions on September 6, 2002 in a criminal appeal, which clearly directed that “during the course of hearing, attention has been invited to Section 52 of NDPS Act, 1985 which has been inserted by Act no. 2 of 1989. The section requires the officer in charge of police station to prepare an inventory of the seized contraband and to apply before the Magistrate to get the said particulars certified.

The said inventory and photos of contraband certified by the Magistrate is admissible as primary evidence in respect of an offence. There is also a provision of disposal of seized contraband under Section 52-A (1) of NDPS Act. Standing orders have been issued by the concerned authorities”.

The court further explained the amendment and held, “This special procedure is departure from normal procedure of keeping of the case property for evidence during trial. Provision for pretrial disposal has been made to prevent misuse of contraband after seizure. This procedure also helps prosecution by obviating the need for production during trial and responsibility for safe custody”.