Darshan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

Darshan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; the appeal was disposed of as withdrawn

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, the investigator in the NDPS case, had a statutory right to maintain an appeal against the judgment of acquittal when neither the State nor the victim had appealed +1 more

Court's answer

A case of recovery of narcotics is an offence against the State and not against an individual; hence it is not a private case in which any person could claim to be a victim under Section 2(wa) of Cr.P.C., 1973.

Ratio / Principle

The statutory right to file an appeal cannot extend beyond what the statute provides; the statute gives the right of appeal either to the State or to the victim, and neither having stepped forward to exercise it, the applicant's role is just akin to that of an intruder asserting a right never granted by the legislature.

Key takeaways

No observations have been made against the applicant in the acquittal judgment; whatever reasons were given were only for the purpose of justifying or supporting the acquittal, and once no adverse findings are recorded there is no reason for anyone to draw any inference against the applicant.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal (CRM-A-1478-2019 (O&M)) by the investigator of an NDPS case against the judgment of acquittal, moved after the Human Rights Commission, Punjab issued certain directions post-acquittal. Held: (i) a case of recovery of narcotics is an offence against the State and not against an individual, so it is not a private case in which any person could claim to be a victim under Section 2(wa) of Cr.P.C., 1973; (ii) the statutory right to file an appeal cannot extend beyond what the statute provides — the right lies either to the State or to the victim, and neither having exercised it, the applicant's role was akin to that of an intruder asserting a right never granted by the legislature; (iii) no observations adverse to the applicant were made in the acquittal judgment, the reasons therein being only to justify or support the acquittal. The State had not challenged the acquittal. Appeal disposed of as withdrawn; companion application (CRM-22770-2019) for condonation of 489 days' delay also disposed of as withdrawn.

243

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-A-1478-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.05.2026

DARSHAN SINGH

...Applicant

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

…Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR

Present : Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ankit Bhincher, Advocate for the applicant.

Ms. Pooja Nayar Sharma, D.A.G., Punjab.

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

CRM-22770-2019

This is an application for condonation of delay of 489 days in

filing the present appeal.

Learned senior counsel for the applicant prays that he may be permitted to withdraw the present application.

Disposed of as withdrawn.

CRM-A-1478-2019 (O&M)

The applicant, who was the investigator in an NDPS case, is aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal for the reasons that after the acquittal, certain directions were issued by the Human Rights Commission, Punjab.

GURPREET KAUR 2026.05.22 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-A-1478-2019 (O&M) -2-

We enquired from the State that whether they have challenged the acquittal before this Court, the State answered in the negative.

It was the case purely between the State and the accused and it is not a private case where any person could claim to be a victim under Section 2(wa) of Cr.P.C., 1973. It is for the reason that it is a case of recovery of narcotics, which is an offence against the State and not against an individual.

Learned senior counsel for the applicant submits that it was for the State to challenge the judgment and because the State did not do so, the applicant has now come up before this Court.

The statutory right to file an appeal cannot extend beyond what the statute provides. Further, the statute has given right to file an appeal either to the State or to the victim, however, neither has stepped forward to exercise such right. The role of the appellant is just akin to that of an intruder asserting a right never granted by the legislature.

Learned Senior Advocate-Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, on instructions from Mr. Ankit Bhincher, Advocate submits that they would be satisfied, if the observations made in the judgment shall not be taken against the applicant, then he would not press the appeal.

We have perused the judgment and no observations have been made against the applicant. Whatever reasons have been given are only for the purpose of justifying or supporting the acquittal. Once, no adverse findings have been recorded, there is no reason for anyone to draw any inference against the applicant.

GURPREET KAUR 2026.05.22 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

-3-

CRM-A-1478-2019 (O&M)

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of as withdrawn in

abovesaid terms.

[ANOOP CHITKARA]

JUDGE

May 18, 2026 [SUKHVINDER KAUR] gurpreet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

GURPREET KAUR 2026.05.22 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document