IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No. M- 14009 of 2010 Date of decision: March 17, 2011 Kuldeep Singh ......Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr. D.S.Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Rajni Gupta, Addl. A.G. Punjab for respondent-State. **** ORDER This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for issuance of directions to respondents No. 1 to 3 for registration of case against respondents No. 4 to 9 for false implication of the petitioner in case FIR No. 360 dated 30th October, 2002 under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act') registered at Police Station, Haibowal, Ludhiana wherein the petitioner has been acquitted vide judgment dated 12th April, 2008. Notice of motion was issued on 13th May, 2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case whereas no offence was made out under the NDPS Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner was employed with Punjab Police and because of certain differences with senior officers, he was falsely implicated and subsequently he was acquitted of the charge by the trial Court. Learned counsel has also prayed that directions be issued to respondents No. 1 to 3 for registration of case against Crl.Misc. No. M- 14009 of 2010 [2] respondents No. 4 to 9 for false implication of the petitioner under N.D.P.S.Act. Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for private respondents have filed their written statements which are on record. Learned counsel for the State has raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has been acquitted by the learned trial Court due to non-compliance of the provisions of Sections 50 and 42 of the Act by Investigating Officer at the time of apprehension of the petitioner and also due to non-joining of independent witness. The petitioner has been acquitted by the trial Court by giving him benefit of doubt. Learned counsel for the State further submits that in the judgment of acquittal, the trial Court has nowhere stated that recovery of the alleged contraband was not found in possession of the petitioner and no adverse remark was passed against any of the police officials. Admittedly, enquiry against the petitioner was conducted firstly by DSP, Sahnewal Ludhiana and after his transfer the same was entrusted to DSP City-3 Ludhiana. On the basis of said inquiry report, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and admittedly, enquiry was kept pending till the decision of the Special Court. After acquittal by the trial Court, five years of approved service of the petitioner with cumulative effect was forfeited for the purpose of increment on 15th January, 2010 by the SSP, Ludhiana and because of that order, the present petition has been filed which is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the State further submits that nowhere in the judgment of the trial Court it has been mentioned that opium was falsely planted upon the petitioner. Crl.Misc. No. M- 14009 of 2010 [3] The petitioner has been acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt which is not an acquittal on merit and this fact has been concealed in the petition. Learned counsel for the State also submits that even in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has admitted that he kept two girls in illegal custody at night without any lawful authority and even interrogated them without associating any lady police official or lady of the locality. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the judgment as well as other documents available on the file. Since the petitioner has been acquitted of the charge by giving him benefit of doubt by the trial Court and the observation made by the trial Court is only for non-compliance of the provisions of the Act and nothing has been said with regard to false implication or false planting of contraband upon the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not made out any case for grant of compensation and to take action against respondents and moreover, it was in discharge of their official duties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any provision or case law as the case can be registered against the official respondents while discharging their official duties and the petitioner has been acquitted by the trial Court by giving him benefit of doubt. The petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE March 17, 2011 raghav