'Court Duty Will Be Priority': P&H High Court Issues Directions To Ensure NDPS Trials Are Not Delayed Due To Non-Appearance Of Police Witnesses

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued a set of directions to ensure that trials under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act are no delayed due to non-appearance of Police/ official witnesses.

Earlier also the Court had expressed dismay over police officials not appearing as witness in NDPS Act. Justice Manjri Nahru Kaul had observed that such non-appearance often led to prolonged trials.

Following suit, Bench of Justice Pankaj Jain pointed that Courts especially in border States are "are reeling under the ever increasing" load of cases related to offences punishable under NDPS Act. It added that defiance of official witnesses needs to be addressed and Prosecuting agencies must shoulder this burden.

Thus, it issued the following set of directions to ensure that NDPS trials especially those involving "commercial quantity" are not left to whims & caprice of official witnesses:

"(a) The police report filed before the Trial Court shall carry the details of officer heading the prosecuting agency.

(b) The head of the prosecuting agency shall be responsible for supervising the progress of the trial.

(c) On the day the Court frames charges, Court shall draw a schedule for management of the trial. The schedule shall be part of the order passed by the Trial Court framing the charges. While drawing the schedule, the Court shall fix the date for examination of each and every witness cited in the police report.

(d) It will be the duty of the head of the prosecuting agency to make sure that the official witnesses are served and they appear before the Trial Court as per the schedule framed by the Trial Court. Their presence on the date be ensured. For the official witness, Court duty shall have priority over any other duty apart from call on account of emergency situation i.e. where State is facing some calamity or agitation etc. involving movement and commissioning of troops. In such case, presence of such witness shall be ensured on the next date as per schedule.

(e) Departmental action against erring officials who are cited witnesses and fail to attend the trial despite notice shall be initiated without any delay and their presence shall be secured on next date through warrants without disturbing the schedule.

(f) Officer heading prosecution shall keep a note of the progress of trial, if satisfactory. If not, steps taken to ascertain the reasons and cause of delay.

(g) Trial Court while framing schedule shall make sure that trial is concluded expeditiously preferably within 18 months from the date of presentation of complete Police Report and not later than 12 months from the date charges are framed."

The Court further clarified that the Trial Court may consider submission of counsel representing accused while fixing schedule. But the same is not mandatory and the schedule cannot be faulted on the ground that counsel for the accused was not heard or that the schedule is not as per his convenience.

"Expeditious disposal of trial is the key for the criminal justice system to succeed. Time has come to manage progress of trial under NDPS Act involving 'commercial quantity' of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances just like case management introduced in commercial suits by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015," it added.

Justice Jain was hearing the petition under Section 439 CrPC seeking regular bail pending trial in case for the offences punishable under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, and Section 25 of Arms Act, at Punjab's Tarn Taran.

The petitioner was allegedly found to be in conscious possession of 260 grams of heroin and is in custody since 4th of September, 2021. The Police report was filed before Special Judge on 21st of September, 2021. Charges were framed in May, 2023. Only 2 out of 16 cited prosecution witnesses have been examined till date.

Perusing the affidavit filed by SSP Taran Taran on behalf of State, the Court noted that, "The narration shows deliberate attempt made by the official witnesses to scuttle down the prosecution. This is not the only case where trial is being delayed for want of co-operation from the official witnesses."

The bench further said that the NDPS Act was enacted in discharge of obligations under International Convention of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. The objective is to make stringent provisions for the control and regulation of operations relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.

"The offences under the Act are heinous and the punishments provided are stringent. Keeping in view the factual situation, especially in the border States of the country, the Courts are reeling under the ever increasing load of lis related to offences punishable under the 1985 Act. Section 37 puts embargo upon grant of bail to the undertrials," the Court added.

The Court also referred to Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee representing Undertrial Prisoners vs. Union of India (1994), wherein the Apex Court recognised the right of the undertrials to speedy trial and issued certain directions.

"Trials remain pending for years together as the witnesses despite being police personnel keep evading trial. This callousness that too of the official witnesses remains unexplained, resulting in a situation where law appears helpless. As a result, it neither serves the interest of accused nor that of the prosecution," the Court added.

Furthermore, it said that in some situations, innocents are facing prolonged incarceration whereas in some, repeated offenders are getting bails only on account of prolonged incarceration, abusing the concession granted by the Courts. Consequently, the Court issued the aforesaid directions.

R.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Sidharth Sandhu, AAG, Punjab.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 51