2013 (1) TMI 590 - SC - Customs

Apex Court issues Directions as the Law declared under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. regarding proceedings under the NDPS Act. - Directions and detailed process about - (i) Adjournment - (ii) Examination of Witnesses - (iii) Workload - (iv) Narcotics Labs - (v) Personnel - (vi) Re-testing Provisions - (vii) Monitoring - (viii) Public Prosecutors - (ix) Other Recommendations. For the simplification of the above detailed process, we direct that the filing of the charge- sheet and supply of other documents must also be provided in electronic form. However, this direction must not be treated as a substitute for hard copies of the same which are indispensable for court proceedings. We expect and hope that the aforesaid directions shall be complied with by the Central Government, State Governments and the Union Territories, as the case may be, expeditiously and in the spirit that these have been made.

Issues Involved:
1. Prolonged incarceration of undertrial prisoners under the NDPS Act.
2. Laxity in granting adjournments in narcotics trials.
3. Inefficiencies in the examination of witnesses.
4. Overburdened courts and lack of adequate NDPS courts.
5. Inadequate narcotics laboratories and forensic facilities.
6. Shortage of technical and scientific personnel in forensic labs.
7. Provisions for re-testing and re-sampling of narcotic substances.
8. Need for monitoring agencies to oversee NDPS cases.
9. Appointment and quality of public prosecutors.
10. Delays due to compliance with Section 207 of the CrPC.

Detailed Analysis:

Prolonged Incarceration of Undertrial Prisoners:
The judgment addresses a case where an accused had been imprisoned for over twelve years without trial commencement under the NDPS Act. The Supreme Court highlighted the inconsistency in applying the precedent set in the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners Vs. Union of India & Ors. (1994), which mandates bail for undertrials jailed for over five years. The Court emphasized the need for speedy trials in NDPS cases, as reiterated in Achint Navinbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. (2002).

Laxity in Granting Adjournments:
The Court criticized the excessive granting of adjournments, which prolongs trials. It referred to the unnotified fourth proviso to Section 309(2) of the CrPC, which aims to limit adjournments. The Court directed that no NDPS court should grant adjournments except in circumstances beyond the party's control, emphasizing the need for adherence to this principle to ensure speedy trials.

Inefficiencies in the Examination of Witnesses:
The judgment noted the inconvenience caused to witnesses due to non-consecutive examination dates. The Court directed a return to "session's trials" where examinations and cross-examinations occur on consecutive days. It also directed the use of Section 293 of the CrPC to take evidence from official witnesses in the form of affidavits to save time.

Overburdened Courts and Lack of Adequate NDPS Courts:
The Court acknowledged the heavy workload on courts and directed states to establish Special Courts exclusively for NDPS cases. These courts should prioritize NDPS cases until their backlog is cleared.

Inadequate Narcotics Laboratories and Forensic Facilities:
The judgment highlighted the insufficient number of narcotics laboratories and their critical role in NDPS cases. The Court directed the establishment of more CFSLs and state-level forensic labs, ensuring equal access across the country. It also stressed the need for adequate technical staff and standardized equipment in these labs.

Shortage of Technical and Scientific Personnel in Forensic Labs:
The Court pointed out the vacancies in CFSLs and directed the Directorate of Forensic Science Services to address the shortage urgently. It emphasized the need to improve the quality and expertise of technical staff and equipment.

Provisions for Re-testing and Re-sampling of Narcotic Substances:
The judgment noted the trend of NDPS courts permitting re-testing and re-sampling, which causes delays. The Court directed that re-testing should not be a matter of course and should only be permitted in exceptional circumstances within fifteen days of receiving the test report.

Need for Monitoring Agencies to Oversee NDPS Cases:
The Court directed the appointment of nodal officers in all departments dealing with NDPS cases to monitor the progress of investigations and trials. It also mandated the presence of Pairvi Officers in each court to report daily proceedings to the nodal officer.

Appointment and Quality of Public Prosecutors:
The judgment emphasized the importance of public prosecutors in NDPS cases. It suggested aligning the appointment procedure of Special Public Prosecutors with that of general public prosecutors under Section 24 of the CrPC. The Court directed that recommendations for appointments be made in consultation with the Administrative Judge/Portfolio Judge.

Delays Due to Compliance with Section 207 of the CrPC:
The Court acknowledged the delays caused by compliance with Section 207 of the CrPC, which mandates the supply of police reports and other documents to the accused. It directed that charge-sheets and other documents be provided in electronic form, alongside hard copies, to simplify the process.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court issued comprehensive directions to address the prolonged incarceration of undertrial prisoners, inefficiencies in trial processes, and inadequacies in forensic facilities under the NDPS Act. The judgment aims to ensure speedy trials, improve the quality of forensic analysis, and enhance the overall administration of justice in NDPS cases.

← Previous Next →