On November 13, the Supreme Court underscored the paramount importance of considering the “irreversible consequences” and potential impact on the rights of an accused when a chargesheet is filed under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 without the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report within the stipulated time frame.
The Special bench, presided over by Justice Suryakant, which included Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ujjal Bhuyan, engaged in deliberation on whether an individual accused of committing offenses under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 is entitled to default bail due to the prosecution’s failure to submit the FSL report along with the chargesheet within the prescribed time limit.
During the hearing, Justice Suryakant emphasized that the current focus should be on balancing the rights of the accused in instances where the FSL report has not been provided in time.
“What are the rights of the accused that we need to protect if the FSL report is not received within time…and such rights which if not protected will become irreversible?” Justice Suryakant remarked.
Considering the above, the bench noted that the Rules do not explicitly provide consequences for non-compliance with the prescribed timeline.
“The Rules are silent on the consequences.”
Underlining the significant impact the current issue has on nationwide NDPS trials, Justice Suryakant emphasized the need for a balanced approach that considers the rights and interests of both the accused and the state.
“Ultimately, a balancing act is necessary. No prejudice should be caused to the accused, but neither should prejudice be caused to the prosecution. The nation also has significant stakes in these proceedings; it is not just an individual matter. The country has substantial interests involved.”
During the hearing, Justice Dhulia inquired about the delay in submitting Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) reports despite the 15-day timeframe provided under the 2022 Rules.
“We are not scientists; we do not know how these reports are prepared. If 15 days are given in the specified timeframe, it means that such a report can be prepared without any issues. Then why the delay?” Justice Dhulia asked.
The counsel responded that the delays are primarily attributed to administrative shortcomings. At this juncture, Justice Suryakant also highlighted the inadequate laboratories in states and the lack of sufficient expertise for preparing FSL reports. The Court noted that larger states like Uttar Pradesh would only have one or two such laboratories to test samples amidst a substantial case backlog.
AOR Ashima Mandla, representing one of the petitioners, pointed out that as per the 2013 directions of the Apex Court in Thana Singh vs Central Bureau of Narcotics, each state is mandated to identify and establish laboratories for NDPS cases and establish monitoring committees to ensure that trials are not delayed due to the absence of relevant documents.
Taking note of this, Justice Suryakant also suggested that it would be pertinent to assess whether the states have complied with the 2013 directions. Failure to do so would have a comprehensive impact on trials under the NDPS Act.
“The absence of adequate laboratories and personnel poses a significant challenge. We must ascertain the number of states that have complied with the guidelines, whether they have even attempted to comply, and their intentions regarding compliance. This information is crucial as it may impact the commencement of the trial and the framing of charges. These issues are interconnected and require careful consideration.”
The bench emphasized the importance of the quality of training provided to forensic experts involved in preparing reports and the nature of institutions offering such training.
“We are also curious about the number of specialized training institutions imparting courses in this field. While universities are ideal for such training, they also employ professors and teachers in the subject. These are matters that affect the entire country, not just a single state. We must adopt a pan-India approach.”
In its order, the bench instructed the counsel representing both parties to prepare a list of questions addressing the need to strike a balance between the rights of the accused and potential procedural compliance in the interest of the prosecution.
“Both parties are requested to formulate questions elucidating the irreversible consequences of certain actions and the mandatory nature of procedural compliance. This will ensure the protection of the interests of both the accused and the prosecution.”
The bench clarified that it would not be considering individual cases of the petitioners seeking bail in the present matter. Instead, the Court would focus on the legal aspects of the case and grant liberty to counsel to withdraw their individual applications for bail. The Court would seek appropriate remedies before the special courts.
The bench appointed Advocate Ashima Mandla as the nodal officer for the main matter. Advocate Siddhant Sharma appeared as standing counsel for the state of Punjab and was appointed as the nodal officer for the respondents.
source Live law Advocate Rohit Dandriyal
