HC flags non-appearance of police witnesses in trials, says apathy ‘deserves redressal’

Holding that trials under the NDPS Act are being stalled indefinitely due to the “indifference or wilful non-cooperation of official witnesses” who routinely failed to appear before trial courts, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has asserted that such “exhibition of laxity and apathy” by police officials “deserves redressal”. The Bench further observed that the seeming abdication of duty by senior police officers was “a malady to which this Court finds itself unable to turn a Nelson’s eye.”

Justice Sumeet Goel’s Bench was dealing with a bail plea when it took note of repeated adjournments caused by the non-appearance of official witnesses, most of whom were police personnel. The court observed the petitioner was arrested in July 2022 and the challan was presented a year later. As many as 13 prosecution witnesses – primarily official/police witnesses – were cited, but the entire prosecution evidence was yet to be concluded.

“It has been repeatedly observed that official witnesses in NDPS cases—who, in most cases, comprise police personnel—are consistently failing to appear before the court to tender their evidence, despite the issuance of bailable warrants and, in numerous instances, even non-bailable warrants. Alarmingly, there exist several cases where even bailable warrants remain unexecuted for extended periods, resulting in routine adjournments of trials under the NDPS Act solely on this count,” Justice Goel asserted.

The Bench asserted the state of affairs reflected a deeply disturbing and systemic lapse in the prosecutorial mechanism. It not only frustrated the right of the accused—whether incarcerated or on bail—to speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, but also gravely undermined the administration of criminal justice.

“The abdication of duty by official witnesses, who are employees of the State, erodes public confidence in the justice delivery system and emboldens criminal elements by showcasing prosecutorial apathy. It sets a dangerous precedent where procedural laxity takes precedence over judicial efficacy,” Justice Goel warned.

Making it clear that such conduct compromised deterrence and enabled recycling of narcotic offenders back into society during pendency of trial, Justice Goel asserted: “Such dereliction by State officials, especially serving police officials, amounts to an affront to both rule of law and societal welfare.”

Expressing its inability to overlook the malaise, Justice Goel added: “Senior police officials—in particular, at the helm of the police force at the district level—are under a bounden duty to monitor the conduct of police officials and ensure their presence for tendering evidence before the concerned trial Court,” the Bench observed.

Before parting with the case, Justice Goel directed Faridkot Senior Superintendent of Police to file an affidavit bringing on record the applicable SOPs/circulars, including those issued by the Home Secretary, and the DGP governing the appearance of official witnesses, especially police witnesses, before the trial courts in the State.

He was further directed to examine the culpability of police officials/witnesses who failed to appear for recording their testimony despite the issuance of repeated bailable warrants. He was asked to identify the reasons for non-service of such warrants and name the officials responsible. The SSP was also directed to furnish details of remedial steps, including disciplinary action, if any, initiated against the erring officers. The affidavit is to be filed by the next hearing on August 7.

Punjab