9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Procedural requirements for trial of cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 when initiated on a written complaint by a non-police officer. Analysis: The revision application challenged the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge regarding the procedure to be followed in N.D.P.S. Case No. 7 of 2002. The petitioner contended that since the case was not based on a police report, the provisions of Sections 244 to 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should apply. The petitioner sought to have witnesses examined before framing charges, following the procedure for warrant cases. However, the Additional Sessions Judge rejected this request, leading to the revision application. The main issue before the High Court was whether the trial procedure for warrant cases under Sections 244 to 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be followed in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 initiated by a written complaint from a non-police officer. The petitioner argued for the application of warrant case procedures, emphasizing the need for witness examination before framing charges. Conversely, the opposite party contended that the trial should follow the provisions of Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure for sessions cases due to the nature of the case falling under the Act. After considering the arguments from both sides, the Court examined the relevant provisions of the Act. It was noted that until a Special Court is constituted, cases under the Act are to be tried by a Court of Session, which is deemed to have the powers of a Special Court. The Court highlighted Section 36A(1)(d) of the Act, which allows for cognizance of offenses without the need for the accused to be committed for trial. The Court emphasized that the Code of Criminal Procedure provisions for trial under the Act take precedence over general warrant case procedures. Ultimately, the Court found that the Special Court or Court of Session handling N.D.P.S. cases should not follow the trial procedures for warrant cases under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court upheld the decision of the Additional Sessions Judge, dismissing the revision application as lacking merit. The order was to be sent to the lower court, and certified copies were to be provided to the parties upon request.
|
