NDPS Act| What Are Consequences If Chargesheet Is Filed Without FSL Report? Supreme Court Hears Reference

The Supreme Court today (November 13) highlighted the need to consider the 'irreversible consequences' and effects 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 time limit. 

The Special bench led by Justice Suryakant comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing the issue of whether a person accused of committing offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 is entitled to default bail on the failure of the prosecution to furnish the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory(FSL) along with the chargesheet within the prescribed time.

During the hearing, Justice Suryakant stressed that present reference should focus 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 which need to be protected by us if the FSL report is not received within time…and such rights which if not protected will become irreversible?" Justice Suryakant remarked. 

The Court was informed that under Rule 14 of NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, the FSL report has to be given to the Magistrate's Court within 15 days from the receipt of the sample. The rule further provides that in case where a  "quantitative analysis requires longer time, the results of the qualitative test shall be dispatched to the court of Magistrate with a copy to investigating officer within the said time limit on the original copy of the Test Memo and in the next fifteen days the result of quantitative test shall also be indicated on the duplicate Test Memo and sent to the court of Magistrate with a copy to the investigating officer".

Considering the above, the bench noted that Rules do not provide the consequences for non-compliance of the timeline set.

"The Rules are silent on the consequence".

Underscoring the larger impact the present issue has on the nation-wide NDPS trials, Justice Suryakant insisted on taking a balancing approach where rights and interests of the accused and the state have to be kept in mind. 

"Ultimately, a balancing act- no prejudice should be caused to the accused but then no prejudice should be caused to the prosecution also because...the nation also has stakes in these proceedings, its not some individual stakes. The country has some very serious stakes involved." 

Bench Mulls Over The Administrative Shortcomings In Setting Up Laboratories Across States 

During the hearing, Justice Dhulia inquired why there was delay in submitting FSL reports despite sufficient time of 15 days given under the 2022 Rules.

" We are not scientists; we don't know how it is prepared. Now if 15 days is given in the time period, it means that such a report can be prepared - no problem on that, then why the delay?"  Justice Dhulia asked. 

The Counsels then answered that the delays occur due to administrative shortcomings. At this juncture Justice Suryakant also flagged the issue of inadequate laboratories in states and lack of sufficient expertise for preparing the FSL reports. The Court also noted that how bigger states like Uttar Pradesh would have only 1-2 such FSLs to test the samples amidst large case pendency. 

AOR Ashima Mandla appearing for one of the petitioners pointed that as per the 2013 directions of the Apex Court in Thana Singh vs Central Bureau Of Narcotics, each state is required to identify and set up laboratories for NDPS cases and establish monitoring committees to oversee that trials are not delayed due to absence of relevant documents. 

Taking note of the same, Justice Suryakant also opined that it will be relevant to see whether proper compliance of the 2013 directions has been done by the states or not, as it would have a holistic impact on trials under the NDPS Act. 

"Lack of proper laboratories and work power....we need to find out how many states have complied with partially, fully or have they not even touched those directions and whether they intend to do it and how many such cases are there? because the trial cannot commence , maybe the charges cannot be framed - all these issues are overlapping" 

The bench laid emphasis on the quality of the training of such forensic experts involved in preparing the reports and the nature of such institutions which may be providing such training. 

" We are also wondering; how many such institutions are there imparting specialized training in that kind of courses also? ... It is ideal that there be universities for this, but they have professors and teachers for it also in the subject. These are issues which will effect the entirety of the country, we are not going by just one state, we need to have a pan-India approach."

The bench in its order directed the counsels on both sides to prepare a list of questions addressing the need to balance the rights of the accused and possible procedural compliances in the interest of prosecution as well. 

" Both parties are requested to formulate questions explaining irreversible consequences and also the mandatory nature of the procedural compliances so as to safeguard the interest of accused as well as the prosecution."  

 The bench also clarified that it will not be going into individual cases of the petitioners seeking for bail in the present matter. The Court would be restricting itself to the question of law and granted liberty to counsels to withdraw their individual applications for bails and seeks appropriate remedy before the special courts. 

The bench also appointed Advocate Ashima Mandla the nodal officer in the main matter. Advocate Siddhant Sharma appeared as standing counsel of state of Punjab and appointed as the nodal officer for respondents. 

The matter will now be heard on December 11. 

What Led To Present Reference? 

Initially, a division bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and PV Sanjay Kumar was hearing a Special Leave Petition filed against a judgment of the Delhi High Court which rejected accused's plea for default bail on the ground of non-supply of the FSL report. 

The bench was considering whether non-furnishing of the FSL report with the chargesheet, within the prescribed time, would entitle an accused to default bail on the ground that it would be an incomplete chargesheet without such a report.

The bench took note of the judgment passed by a coordinate bench in Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Kapil Wadhawan and Anr 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 58 which held that a chargesheet will not be invalidated merely because the prosecution did not supply certain documents along with it.

The bench also noted that there are other pending petitions in which the same question is raised. However, a final view is yet to be expressed, though interim orders have been passed in some cases granting interim bail to the accused.

Thus, the division bench referred the question to a larger bench in view of the the diversity of views expressed by different benches.

Case Details :  JAGDISH SINGH v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL SLP No. 3850 of 2023 and Other Connected Matters