The Punjab and Haryana High Court has discharged a Delhi-based licensed medical dealer from an NDPS case, holding that a co-accused person’s disclosure statement, without independent evidence, was insufficient to justify criminal prosecution.
Justice H.S. Grewal allowed a revision petition filed by Anil Kumar Kaushik and set aside a Special Court order that had refused to discharge him in a case involving the alleged recovery of intoxicant tablets from other accused persons.
Background of the Case
The case arose from FIR No. 104 dated May 23, 2021, registered at Police Station City Kotkapura, Faridkot, under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. According to the prosecution, police intercepted a canter vehicle and allegedly recovered 31,020 Lomotil tablets from two occupants, Jaspal Singh alias Rinku and Harjinder Singh alias Kala.
During investigation, Harjinder Singh allegedly disclosed that the tablets had been purchased from Anil Kumar Kaushik, proprietor of a medical store in Delhi. Based on this statement, Kaushik was nominated as an accused under Section 29 of the NDPS Act. Police later conducted a search at his premises and recovered various medicines and tablets.
The petitioner argued that he was a licensed medical dealer and that the medicines recovered from his premises were lawfully stocked under a valid licence. He further contended that he had been implicated solely on the basis of a disclosure statement made by a co-accused.
The High Court noted that the petitioner was nominated only on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the co-accused during investigation. The Court also recorded that Kaushik held a valid licence issued by the competent authority for dealing in medicines.
Importantly, the Court observed that during further investigation, police authorities independently verified the petitioner’s licence and supporting documents and subsequently found him innocent. A supplementary report under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted in his favour.
Justice Grewal pointed out that the prosecution itself claimed the co-accused had used forged documents while purchasing medicines from the petitioner. However, there was no material suggesting that Kaushik knew the documents were forged.
“The petitioner was nominated in the present case only on the basis of the disclosure statement made by co-accused Harjinder Singh @ Kala during investigation,” the Court observed.
The Court further rejected the trial court’s reasoning that medicines were recovered from a store room behind the shop rather than from the licensed premises mentioned in the licence.
“Merely because the medicines were allegedly recovered from the store room situated behind the petitioner’s shop and not from the exact premises mentioned in the licence, by itself, cannot lead to an inference of criminal involvement,” the bench observed.
The Court emphasized that there was no independent incriminating material to show that the petitioner knowingly participated in illegal trafficking or any unlawful activity under the NDPS Act.
Allowing the revision petition, the High Court set aside the February 25, 2022 order of the Special Court, Faridkot, insofar as it related to the petitioner’s discharge plea.
The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to be discharged from the FIR and clarified that the criminal trial would continue against the remaining accused in accordance with law.
Case Details
Case Title: Anil Kumar Kaushik v. State of Punjab
Case Number: CRR-2324-2022 (O&M)
Judge: Justice H.S. Grewal
Decision Date: May 29, 2026
