//
you're reading...
legal issues

directions – the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985(hereinafter referred to as the “NDPS Act”), = Undertrial Prisoners Vs. Union of India & Ors.[1], which held that “where the undertrial accused is charged with an offence(s) under the Act punishable with minimum imprisonment of ten years and a minimum fine of rupees one lakh, such an undertrial shall be released on bail if he has been in jail for not less than five years provided he furnishes bail in the sum of rupees one lakh with two sureties for like amount”, finds constrained applicability in respect of cases under the NDPS Act, in light of Section 37 of the Act. Therefore, this Court in Achint Navinbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.[2] observed that “it has been repeatedly stressed that NDPS cases should be tried as early as possible because in such cases normally accused are not released on bail.” = The laxity with which we throw citizens into prison reflects our lack of appreciation for the tribulations of incarceration; the callousness with which we leave them there reflects our lack of deference for humanity. It also reflects our imprudence when our prisons are bursting at their seams. For the prisoner himself, imprisonment for the purposes of trial is as ignoble as imprisonment on conviction for an offence, since the damning finger and opprobrious eyes of society draw no difference between the two. The plight of the undertrial seems to gain focus only on a solicitous inquiry by this Court, and soon after, quickly fades into the backdrop.= 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. 30. 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.

REPORTABLE

Eleanor Roosevelt with Franklin D. Roosevelt J...

Eleanor Roosevelt with Franklin D. Roosevelt Jr. and Felix Frankfurter in Hyde Park, New York – NARA – 196249 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

|IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
|CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION |
|CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1640 OF 2010 |
| |
|THANA SINGH |— |APPELLANT |
|VERSUS |
|CENTRAL BUREAU OF NARCOTICS |— |RESPONDENT |

 

O R D E R

 

1. This order, and its accompanying directions, are an outcome of the bail
matter in Thana Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Narcotics listed before this
bench, wherein an accused, who had been languishing in prison for more
than twelve years, awaiting the commencement of his trial for an offence
under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
(hereinafter referred to as the “NDPS Act”), was consistently denied
bail, even by the High Court. Significantly, the maximum punishment for
the offence the accused was incarcerated for, is twenty years; hence, the
undertrial had remained in detention for a period exceeding one-half of
the maximum period of imprisonment. An express pronouncement of this
Court in the case of Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing
Undertrial Prisoners Vs. Union of India & Ors.[1], which held that “where
the undertrial accused is charged with an offence(s) under the Act
punishable with minimum imprisonment of ten years and a minimum fine of
rupees one lakh, such an undertrial shall be released on bail if he has
been in jail for not less than five years provided he furnishes bail in
the sum of rupees one lakh with two sureties for like amount”, finds
constrained applicability in respect of cases under the NDPS Act, in
light of Section 37 of the Act. Therefore, this Court in Achint Navinbhai
Patel Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.[2] observed that “it has been
repeatedly stressed that NDPS cases should be tried as early as possible
because in such cases normally accused are not released on bail.”

2. We are reminded of Justice Felix Frankfurter’s immortal words in
Antonio Richard Rochin Vs. People of the State of California[3],
coincidentally a case pertaining to narcotics, wherein he described some
types of conduct by state agents, although not specifically prohibited by
explicit language in the Constitution, as those that “shock the
conscience” in that they offend “those canons of decency and fairness
which express the notions of justice.” Due process of law requires the
state to observe those principles that are “so rooted in the traditions
and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.” The general
state of affairs pertaining to trials of offences under the NDPS Act
deserves a similar description.
3. The laxity with which we throw citizens into prison reflects our lack of
appreciation for the tribulations of incarceration; the callousness with
which we leave them there reflects our lack of deference for humanity. It
also reflects our imprudence when our prisons are bursting at their
seams. For the prisoner himself, imprisonment for the purposes of trial
is as ignoble as imprisonment on conviction for an offence, since the
damning finger and opprobrious eyes of society draw no difference between
the two. The plight of the undertrial seems to gain focus only on a
solicitous inquiry by this Court, and soon after, quickly fades into the
backdrop.
4. Therefore, bearing in mind the aforesaid imperatives, after granting the
deserved bail in that case, we decided to take cognizance of status quo
and gain a first-hand account about the state of trials in such like
cases pending in all the states. Accordingly, vide order dated
30.08.2010, we issued notice to all states through their Chief
Secretaries to file affidavits furnishing information of all cases under
the NDPS Act where the undertrial has been incarcerated for a period
exceeding five years. In pursuance of the same, we received the valuable
assistance of the Additional Solicitor General of India, Mr. P. P.
Malhotra, learned amicus curiae, Ms. Anita Shenoy; Mr. R. K. Gauba,
District and Sessions Judge (South), Saket, New Delhi; Registrar Generals
of High Courts; Director General, Narcotics Control Bureau, Ministry of
Home Affairs, senior-most Officer-in-Charge of Investigations and
Prosecution for offences under the NDPS Act; representatives of the
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Customs and Excise Departments
and Police of the States concerned.

5. We lay down the directions and guidelines specified hereinafter for due
observance by all concerned as the law declared by this Court under
Article 141 of the Constitution of India. This is done in exercise of the
power available under Article 32 of the Constitution for enforcement of
fundamental rights, especially the cluster of fundamental rights
incorporated under Article 21, which stand flagrantly violated due to the
state of affairs of trials under the NDPS Act. We would like to clarify
that these directions are restricted only to the proceedings under the
NDPS Act.

DIRECTIONS

A. Adjournments

6. The lavishness with which adjournments are granted is not an ailment
exclusive to narcotics trials; courts at every level suffer from this
predicament. The institutionalization of generous dispensation of
adjournments is exploited to prolong trials for varied considerations.
7. Such a practice deserves complete abolishment. The legislature enacted a
crucial amendment in the form of a fourth proviso to Section 309(2) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (through Section 21 (b) of Act 5 of
2009) to tackle the problem, but the same awaits notification. Once
notified, Section 309 will read as follows: –

“309. Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings.
(1) In every inquiry or trial the proceedings shall be held as
expeditiously as possible, and in particular, when the
examination of witnesses has once begun, the same shall be
continued from day to day until all the witnesses in attendance
have been examined, unless the Court finds the adjournment of
the same beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to
be recorded.
(2) If the Court after taking cognizance of an offence, or
commencement of trial, finds it necessary or advisable to
postpone the commencement of, or adjourn, any inquiry or trial,
it may, from time to time, for reasons to be recorded, postpone
or adjourn the same on such terms as it thinks fit, for such
time as it considers reasonable, and may by a warrant remand the
accused if in custody:
Provided that no Magistrate shall remand an accused person to
custody under this section for a term exceeding fifteen days at
a time:
Provided further that when witnesses are in attendance, no
adjournment or postponement shall be granted, without examining
them, except for special reasons to be recorded in writing:
Provided also that no adjournment shall be granted for the
purpose only of enabling the accused person to show cause
against the sentence proposed to be imposed on him

 

 
Provided also that-
a) no adjournment shall be granted at the request of a party,
except where the circumstances are beyond the control of that
party;
b) the fact that the pleader of a party is engaged in another
Court, shall not be a ground or adjournment;
c) where a witness is present in Court but a party or his
pleader is not present or the party or his pleader though
present in Court, is not ready to examine or cross- examine
the witness, the Court may, if thinks fit, record the
statement of the witness and pass such orders as it thinks
fit dispensing with the examination-in-chief or cross-
examination of the witness, as the case may be
Explanation 1.- If sufficient evidence has been obtained to
raise a suspicion that the accused may have committed an
offence, and it appears likely that further evidence may be
obtained by a remand, this is a reasonable cause for a
remand.
Explanation 2.- The terms on which an adjournment or
postponement may be granted include, in appropriate cases,
the payment of costs by the prosecution or the accused.”
[Emphasis supplied]

 
8. The fourth proviso deserves immediate notification. In lieu of the
lacuna created by its conspicuous absence, which is interfering with the
fundamental right of speedy trial [See: Hussainara Khatoon and Ors. Vs.
Home Secretary, State of Bihar[4]], something this Court is duty- bound
to protect and uphold, and till the statutory provisions are in place, we
direct that no NDPS court would grant adjournments at the request of a
party except where the circumstances are beyond the control of the party.
This exception must be treated as an exception, and must not be allowed
to swallow the generic rule against grant of adjournments. Further, where
the date for hearing has been fixed as per the convenience of the
counsel, no adjournment shall be granted without exception. Adherence to
this principle would go a long way in cutting short that queue to the
doors of justice.
9. Perhaps, a provision analogous to Section 22(c) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 may be seriously considered by the legislature for
trials under the NDPS Act. It reads as follow:

“22. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , to apply subject to
certain modifications.- The provisions of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974 .), shall in their application to any
proceeding in relation to an offence punishable under this Act
have effect as if,–
XXX XXX XXX
(c) after sub- section (2) of section 317, the following sub-
section had been inserted, namely:–
‘(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1) or
sub-section (2), the Judge may, if he thinks fit and for
reasons to be recorded by him, proceed with inquiry or trial in
the absence of the accused or his pleader and record the
evidence of any witness subject to the right of the accused to
recall the witness for cross- examination.”

 
B. Examination of Witnesses

 
10. Between harmonizing the rights and duties of the accused and the
victim, the witness is often forgotten. No legal system can render
justice if it is not accompanied with a conducive environment that
encourages and invites witnesses to give testimony. The web of
antagonistic litigation with its entangled threads of investigation,
cross-examination, dealings with the police etc., as it is, lacks the
ability to attract witnesses to participate in a process of justice; it
is baffling that nonetheless, systems of examination that sprout more
disincentives for a witness to take the stand are established. Often,
conclusion of examination alone, keeping aside cross-examination of
witnesses, takes more than a day. Yet, they are not examined on
consecutive days, but on different dates spread out over months. This
practice serves as a huge inconvenience to a witness since he is
repeatedly required to incur expenditure on travel and logistics for
appearance in hearings over a significant period of time. Besides, it
often causes unnecessary repetition in terms of questioning and
answering, and also places greater reliance on one’s ever-fading memory,
than necessary. All these factors together cause lengthier examinations
that compound the duration of trials.

11. It would be prudent to return to the erstwhile method of holding
“session’s trials” i.e. conducting examination and cross-examination of a
witness on consecutive days over a block period of three to four days.
This permits a witness to take the stand after making one-time
arrangements for travel and accommodation, after which, he is liberated
from his civil duties qua a particular case. Therefore, this Court
directs the concerned courts to adopt the method of “session’s trials”
and assign block dates for examination of witnesses.

12. The Narcotics Control Board also pointed out that since operations for
prevention of crimes related to narcotic drugs and substances demands
coordination of several different agencies viz. Central Bureau of
Narcotics (CBN), Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), Department of Revenue
Intelligence (DRI), Department of Custom and Central Excise, State Law
Enforcement Agency, State Excise Agency to name a few, procuring
attendance of different officers of these agencies becomes difficult. On
the completion of investigation for instance, investigating officers
return to their parent organizations and are thus, often unavailable as
prosecution witnesses. In light of the recording of such official
evidence, we direct the concerned courts to make most of Section 293 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and save time by taking evidence
from official witnesses in the form of affidavits. The relevant section
reads as follows:-

“293. Reports of certain Government scientific experts.

(1)  Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a
Government scientific expert to whom this section applies, upon
any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or
analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this
Code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other
proceeding under this Code.
(2)  The Court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any
such expert as to the subject- matter of his report.
(3)  Where any such expert is summoned by a Court and he is
unable to attend personally, he may, unless the Court has
expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any
responsible officer working with him to attend the Court, if
such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can
satisfactorily depose in Court on his behalf.
(4)  This section applies to the following Government scientific
experts, namely:-
(a)  any Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner to
Government;
(b)  the Chief Controller of Explosives;
(c)  the Director of the Finger Print Bureau;
(d)  the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;
(e)  the Director, Deputy Director or Assistant Director of a
Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science
Laboratory;
(f)  the Serologist to the Government.”
(g) any other Government scientific expert specified, by
notification, by the Central Government for this purpose.
C. Workload

 

13. The courts are unduly overburdened, an outcome of the diverse
repertoire of cases they are expected to handle. We are informed by the
Narcotics Control Board that significant time of the NDPS Court is
expended in dealing with bail and other criminal matters. Besides, many
states do not even have the necessary NDPS courts to deal with the volume
of NDPS cases.
14. Therefore, we issue the following directions in this regard:
i) Each state, in consultation with the High Court,
particularly the states of Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and
Jammu & Kashmir (where the pendency of cases over five
years is stated to be high), is directed to establish
Special Courts which would deal exclusively with offences
under the NDPS Act.
ii) The number of these courts must be proportionate to, and
sufficient for, handling the volume of pending cases in the
State.
iii) Till exclusive courts for the purpose of disposing of NDPS
cases under the NDPS Act are established, these cases will
be prioritized over all other matters; after the setting up
of the special courts for NDPS cases, only after the
clearance of matters under the NDPS Act will an NDPS court
be permitted to take up any other matter.
D. Narcotics Labs

 
15. Narcotics laboratories at the national level identify drugs for abuse
and their accompanying substances in suspected samples, determine the
purity and the possible origin of illicit drugs, carry out drug-related
research, particularly on new sources of drugs liable to abuse, and, when
required by the police or courts of law, provide supportive expertise in
drug trafficking cases. Their role in the effective implementation of the
mandate of the NDPS Act is indispensible which is why every state or
region must have proximate access to these laboratories so that samples
collected for the purposes of the Act may be sent on a timely basis to
them for scrutiny. These samples often form primary and clinching
evidence for both the prosecution and the defence, making their
evaluation by narcotics laboratories a crucial exercise.
16. The numbers of these laboratories speak for themselves and are
reproduced here. The numbers for Central Forensic Science Laboratories
(CFSL) are as follows: –

 

|S. No |CFSL Location |Status |
|1. |Chandigarh |In operation |
|2. |Hyderabad |In operation |
|3. |Kolkata |In operation |
|4. |Delhi (Under Central Bureau of Investigation)|In operation |
|5. |Bhopal |Being established |
|6. |Pune |Being established |
|7. |Guwahati |Being established |

17. Similarly, numbers for the state and regional Forensic Science
Laboratories (FSL) are as follows:-
|S. No.|Name of State |Existing State Facilities |
| | |Main State FSL |Regional FSL |
|1. |Andhra Pradesh |1 |9 |
|2. |Arunachal Pradesh |1 |0 |
|3. |Assam |1 |0 |
|4. |Bihar |1 |1 |
|5. |Chattisgarh |1 |2 |
|6. |Goa |Being established |0 |
|7. |Gujarat |1 |5 |
|8. |Haryana |1 |2 |
|9. |Himachal Pradesh |1 |0 |
|10. |Jammu & Kashmir |1 |1 |
|11. |Jharkhand |1 |0 |
|12. |Karnataka |1 |4 |
|13. |Kerala |1 |2 |
|14. |Madhya Pradesh |1 |3 |
|15. |Maharashtra |1 |4 |
|16. |Manipur |1 |0 |
|17. |Meghalaya |1 |0 |
|18. |Mizoram |1 |0 |
|19. |Nagaland |1 |0 |
|20. |Orissa |1 |2 |
|21. |Punjab |1 |0 |
|22. |Rajasthan |1 |3 |
|23. |Sikkim |0 |1 |
|24. |Tamil Nadu |1 |9 |
|25. |Tripura |1 |0 |
|26. |Uttar Pradesh |1 |2 |
|27. |Uttarakhand |1 |0 |
|28. |West Bengal |1 |2 |
| |
|UNION TERRITORIES |
| |Andaman and Nicobar Islands |1 |0 |
| |Chandigarh |0 |0 |
| |Dadra & Nagar Haveli |0 |0 |
| |Daman & Diu |0 |0 |
| |Lakshadweep |0 |0 |
| |NCT of Delhi |1 |0 |
| |Puducherry |0 |0 |
| |TOTAL |28 |52 |
18. A qualitative and quantitative overhaul of these laboratories is
necessary for ameliorating the present state of affairs, for which, we
are issuing the following directions:
i) The Centre must ensure equal access to CFSL’s from different
parts of the country. The current four CFSL’s only cater to
the needs of northern and some areas of western and eastern
parts of the country. Therefore, besides the three in the
pipeline, more CFSL’s must be established, especially to
cater to the needs of southern and eastern parts of the
country.
ii) Analogous directions are issued to the states. Several
states do not possess any existing infrastructure to
facilitate analysis of samples and are hence, compelled to
send them to laboratories in other parts of the country for
scrutiny. Therefore, each state is required to establish
state level and regional level forensic science laboratories.
However, the decision as to the numbers of such laboratories
would depend on the backlog of cases in the state.

19. The above mentioned authorities must ensure adequate employment of
technical staff and provision of facilities and resources for the
purposes of proper, smooth and efficient running of the facilities of
Forensic Science Laboratories under them and the Laboratories should
furnish their reports expeditiously to the concerned agencies.

20. The Directorate of Forensic Science Services, Ministry of Home Affairs,
must take special steps to ensure standardization of equipment across the
various forensic laboratories to prevent vacillating results and disallow
a litigant an opportunity to challenge test results on that basis.
E. Personnel

21. We have also been apprised of the following vacancies at three CFSLs,
namely Chandigarh, Kolkata and Hyderabad.
|Posts |Sanctioned |Filled |Vacant |
|Scientific |99 |64 |35 |
|Technical |45 |40 |05 |

Shortage of staff is bound to hamper with the smooth functioning of these
laboratories, and hence, we direct the Directorate of Forensic Science
Services, Ministry of Home Affairs to address the same on an urgent basis.
22. Further, steps must be taken by the concerned departments to improve
the quality and expertise of the technical staff, equipment and testing
laboratories.

E. Re-testing Provisions

23. The NDPS Act itself does not permit re-sampling or re-testing of
samples. Yet, there has been a trend to the contrary; NDPS courts have
been consistently obliging to applications for re-testing and re-
sampling. These applications add to delays as they are often received at
advanced stages of trials after significant elapse of time. NDPS courts
seem to be permitting re-testing nonetheless by taking resort to either
some High Court judgments [See: State of Kerala Vs. Deepak. P. Shah[5];
Nihal Khan Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT Delhi)[6]] or perhaps to Sections
79 and 80 of the NDPS Act which permit application of the Customs Act,
1962 and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. While re-testing may be an
important right of an accused, the haphazard manner in which the right is
imported from other legislations without its accompanying restrictions,
however, is impermissible. Under the NDPS Act, re-testing and re-sampling
is rampant at every stage of the trial contrary to other legislations
which define a specific time-frame within which the right may be
available. Besides, reverence must also be given to the wisdom of the
Legislature when it expressly omits a provision, which otherwise appears
as a standard one in other legislations. The Legislature, unlike for the
NDPS Act, enacted Section 25(4) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940,
Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rule
56 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, permitting a time period of thirty,
ten and twenty days respectively for filing an application for re-
testing

 
24. Hence, it is imperative to define re-testing rights, if at all, as an
amalgamation of the above- stated factors. Further, in light of Section
52A of the NDPS Act, which permits swift disposal of some hazardous
substances, the time frame within which any application for re-testing
may be permitted ought to be strictly defined. Section 52A of the NDPS
Act reads as follows: –

“52A. Disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic
substances

(1) The Central Government may, having regard to the hazardous
nature of any narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, their
vulnerability to theft, substitution, constraints of proper
storage space or any other relevant considerations, by
notification published in the Official Gazette, specify such
narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances or class of narcotic
drugs or class of psychotropic substances which shall, as soon
as may be after their seizure, be disposed of by such officer
and in such manner as that Government may from time to time,
determine after following the procedure herein- after specified.
(2) Where any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance has been
seized and forwarded to the officer- in- charge of the nearest
police station or to the officer empowered under section 53, the
officer referred to in sub- section (1) shall prepare an
inventory of such narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances
containing such details relating to their description, quality,
quantity, mode of packing, marks, numbers or such other
identifying particulars of the narcotic drugs or psychotropic
substances or the packing in which they are packed, country of
origin and other particulars as the officer referred to in sub-
section (1) may consider relevant to the identity of the
narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances in any proceedings
under this Act and make an application, to any Magistrate for
the purpose of—
(a) certifying the correctness of the inventory so prepared; or
(b) taking, in the presence of such magistrate, photographs of
such drugs or substances and certifying such photographs as
true; or
(c) allowing to draw representative samples of such drugs or
substances, in the presence of such magistrate and certifying
the correctness of any list of samples so drawn.
(3) Where an application is made under sub- section (2), the
Magistrate shall, as soon as may be, allow the application.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 (1 of 1872 ), or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(2 of 1974 ), every court trying an offence under this Act,
shall treat the inventory, the photographs of narcotic drugs or
psychotropic substances and any list of samples drawn under sub-
section (2) and certified by the Magistrate, as primary evidence
in respect of such offence.”

 
25. Therefore, keeping in mind the array of factors discussed above, we
direct that, after the completion of necessary tests by the concerned
laboratories, results of the same must be furnished to all parties
concerned with the matter. Any requests as to re-testing/re-sampling
shall not be entertained under the NDPS Act as a matter of course. These
may, however, be permitted, in extremely exceptional circumstances, for
cogent reasons to be recorded by the Presiding Judge. An application in
such rare cases must be made within a period of fifteen days of the
receipt of the test report; no applications for re-testing/re-sampling
shall be entertained thereafter. However, in the absence of any
compelling circumstances, any form of re-testing/re-sampling is strictly
prohibited under the NDPS Act.

G. Monitoring

 

26. A monitoring agency is pivotal for the effective management of these
recommendations and for the general amelioration of the state of affairs.
Therefore, it is directed that nodal officers be appointed in all the
departments dealing with the NDPS cases, for monitoring the progress of
investigation and trial. This nodal officer must be equivalent or
superior to the rank of Superintendent of Police, who shall ensure that
the trial is not delayed on account of non-supply of documents, non-
availability of the witnesses, or for any other reason.
27. We have also learnt from the Narcotics Control Bureau that some form
of informational asymmetry is prevalent with respect to the communication
of the progress of cases between courts and the department. Therefore,
there must be one Pairvi Officer or other such officer for each court who
shall report the day’s proceedings to the nodal officer assigned for that
court.

H. Public Prosecutors

 
28. Public prosecutors play the most important role in the administration
of justice. Their quality is thus of profound importance to the speed and
outcome of trials. We have been informed that Special Public Prosecutors
for the Central Bureau of Narcotics are appointed by the Ministry of Home
Affairs after scrutiny by the Ministry of Law and Justice, on the
recommendation of the District and Sessions Judge concerned. We suggest
that the procedure of appointment, placed before us, be brought in line
with that generally followed for the appointment of public prosecutors,
as mandated under Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
However, for the present, we direct that the District and Sessions Judge
shall make recommendations for such appointments in consultation with the
Administrative Judge/Portfolio Judge/Inspecting Judge, incharge of
looking after the administration of the concerned Sessions Division.

I. Other Recommendations.
29. Delays are caused due to demands of compliance with Section 207 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which reads as follows:-

“207. Supply to the accused of copy of police report and other
documents. In any case where the proceeding has been instituted
on a police report, the Magistrate shall without delay furnish
to the accused, free of cost, a copy of each of the following:-

(i) the police report;
(ii) the first information report recorded under section 154;
(iii) the statements recorded under sub- section (3) of section
161 of all persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as
its witnesses, excluding therefrom any part in regard to which a
request for such exclusion has been made by the police officer
under sub- section (6) of section 173;
(iv) the confessions and statements, if any, recorded under
section 164;
(v) any other document or relevant extract thereof forwarded to
the Magistrate with the police report under sub- section (5) of
section 173:
Provided that the Magistrate may, after perusing any such part
of a statement as is referred to in clause (iii) and considering
the reasons given by the police officer for the request, direct
that a copy of that part of the statement or of such portion
thereof as the Magistrate thinks proper, shall be furnished to
the accused:
Provided further that if the Magistrate is satisfied that any
document referred to in clause (v) is voluminous, he shall,
instead of furnishing the accused with a copy thereof, direct
that he will only be allowed to inspect it either personally or
through pleader in Court.”

 
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.
30. 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.

31. Before parting, we place on record our deep appreciation for the able
assistance rendered to us by the learned Additional Solicitor General;
amicus curiae; Mr. Utkarsh Saxena, Law Clerk-cum-Research Assistant and
all the officers who were requested to participate in the deliberations.

32. The matter stands closed.

 

| | |
| |……..…………………………………. |
| | (D.K. JAIN, J.) |
| | |
| | |
| |……..…………………………………. |
| | (JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.) |
|NEW DELHI, | |
|JANUARY 23, 2013. | |

 
———————–
[1] (1994) 6 SCC 731
[2] (2002) 10 SCC 529
[3] 96 L. Ed. 183 (1951)

[4] (1980) 1 SCC 81

[5] 2001 CriLJ 2690
[6] 2007 CriLJ 2074

 

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,887,200 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: