NDPS Act| What are the consequences if the cost overview is submitted without an FSL report? Supreme Court hears reference

The Supreme Court has today (November 13) emphasized the need to take into account the ‘irreversible consequences’ and effects on a suspect’s rights when a charge is brought under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 without Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report has been received. the time limit.

The special bank headed by Justice Suryakant comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan heard the question whether a person accused of committing offenses under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 is entitled to standard bail because the prosecutor has failed to submit the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report along with the charge sheet within the prescribed time.

During the hearing, Justice Suryakant emphasized that the current referral should focus on balancing the rights of the accused in cases where the FSL report has not been filed on time.

“What are the rights of the suspect that should be protected by us if the FSL report is not received within time…and such rights which, if not protected, will become irreversible?” noted Justice Suryakant.

The court was informed that under Rule 14 of the NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, the FSL report must be submitted to the Magistrate’s Court within 15 days of receipt of the sample. The rule further provides that in the case where a “quantitative analysis requires more time, the results of the qualitative test will be sent to the court of magistrate within the said period with a copy to the investigating officer on the original copy of the test memo and within the next fifteen days the result of the quantitative analysis shall be sent to the Magistrate’s court.” test will also be mentioned on the duplicate Test Memo and sent to the court of Magistrate with a copy to the Investigating Officer.”.

In view of the above, the court noted that the Rules do not provide for the consequences for failure to comply with the set timeline.

“The rules are silent about the consequences.”

Justice Suryakant underlined the larger impact that the current issue has on the NDPS trials nationwide and urged a balanced approach keeping in mind the rights and interests of the accused and the state.

“Ultimately, there must be a balancing act: there should be no prejudice to the suspect, but then there should also be no prejudice to the prosecutor, also because… the nation also has interests in these proceedings, it is not a few individual interests. there are serious stakes.”

Bench ruminates over the administrative shortcomings in setting up laboratories in different states

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

“We are not scientists; we don’t know how it is prepared. If 15 days are now given in the time period, it means that such a report can be prepared – no problem, then why the delay?” asked Justice Dhulia.

The Counsel subsequently responded that the delays are the result of administrative shortcomings. At this time, 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 larger states like Uttar Pradesh would have only 1-2 such FSLs to test the samples amid major pendency of cases.

AOR Ashima Mandla appearing for 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 required to identify and set up laboratories for NDPS cases and constitute monitoring committees to to ensure that trials are not postponed due to the lack of relevant documents.

Taking note of this, Justice Suryakant also opined that it will be relevant to see whether the states have properly complied with the 2013 guidelines or not as this would have a holistic impact on trials under the NDPS Act.

“Lack of good laboratories and labor. We need to find out how many states have partially, fully or not even complied with these guidelines and whether they plan to do so and how many such cases are there? because the trial cannot begin, the charges may not be framed – all these issues overlap.”

The bench emphasized on the quality of training of such forensic experts involved in preparing the reports and the nature of such institutions that may provide such training.

“ We also wonder; How many such institutions are there that also provide specialized training in those types of courses? … It is ideal that there are universities for it, but they also have professors and teachers for it in the field. These are issues that will affect the entire country, we are not going to start from just one state, we need a pan-India approach.”

The court in its order directed counsel for both parties to prepare a list of questions regarding the need to balance the rights of the accused and possible procedural compliance in the interest of the prosecution.

“ Both parties are invited to formulate questions explaining the irreversible consequences, as well as the mandatory nature of the procedural obligations, in order to safeguard the interests of both the suspect and the prosecutor.”

The court also clarified that it will not go into individual cases of petitioners seeking bail in the present case. The Court would confine itself to the question of law and grant counsel the liberty to withdraw their individual bail applications and seek appropriate remedy before the special courts.

The bank has also been appointed Lawyer Ashima Mandla the nodal officer in the main case. Lawyer Siddhant Sharma appeared as standing counsel for the State of Punjab and was appointed as nodal officer for respondents.

The case will now be heard on December 11.

What led to the current reference?

Initially a divorce bank consisting of Judges Aniruddha Bose and PV Sanjay Kumar was hearing a special leave petition filed against a judgment of the Delhi High Court which rejected the accused’s plea for default bail on the grounds of non-furnishing of the FSL report.

The court considered whether failure to provide the FSL report with the charge sheet within the prescribed time would entitle an accused to default bail on the grounds that without such a report it would be an incomplete charge.

The court has taken note of the judgment of a coordinate bench in Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Kapil Wadhawan and Anr 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 58, where it was held that a charge shall not be declared invalid merely because the prosecutor has not furnished certain documents. .

The court also noted that there are other pending petitions asking the same question. However, a final position is yet to be taken, although in some cases interim orders have been issued granting interim bail to the suspect.

Therefore, the division bench referred the question to a larger bench, considering the diversity of views expressed by the different benches.

Case Details: JAGDISH SINGH v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL SLP No. 3850 of 2023 and other related cases