In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court addressed procedural nuances under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), particularly concerning the submission of forensic reports in drug-related offenses. The court examined whether a forensic laboratory's direct delivery of a Chemical Examination Report (CER) to the trial court, bypassing the traditional route through the investigating agency, constitutes a procedural infirmity that could vitiate the trial process.
The case involved a petitioner arrested on February 21, 2024, for possession of contraband substances in commercial quantities. The investigating agency filed a charge sheet on August 16, 2024, notably without the accompanying Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report. Subsequently, on September 26, 2024, the chemical examiner sent the FSL report directly to the trial court. The petitioner contended that this direct submission violated procedural mandates, arguing that the FSL report should have been routed through the investigating officer and included in the charge sheet. On September 27, 2024, the petitioner filed for statutory bail, asserting entitlement due to the alleged procedural lapse.
The division bench, comprising Justices Arijit Banerjee and Apurba Sinha Ray, deliberated on the petitioner's claims. The petitioner argued that, per Section 190(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), a trial court takes cognizance based on a police report, which, under Section 173(2)(i) of the Cr.P.C., should include all pertinent documents, notably the FSL report. The absence of the FSL report in the initial charge sheet, according to the petitioner, rendered the charge sheet incomplete, thereby entitling him to bail.
Contrarily, the court emphasized the overarching need to mitigate systemic delays within the criminal justice system. It observed that the direct transmission of the FSL report to the trial court by the forensic laboratory effectively reduced potential delays that typically occur when routing such reports through multiple channels. The bench stated, "The action of the laboratory by sending the report directly to the court can be viewed as an effort... to reduce the 'systemic' delay which usually occurs in our courts." The court further noted that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any prejudice or harm resulting from this direct submission.
This ruling underscores the court's commitment to expediting judicial processes, especially in cases under the NDPS Act, where timely submission of forensic evidence is crucial for the progression of trials. By validating the direct submission of forensic reports to trial courts, the Calcutta High Court aims to streamline procedures, ensuring that technicalities do not impede the course of justice.
In essence, the judgment reflects a pragmatic approach, balancing strict adherence to procedural norms with the necessity to address and reduce systemic delays, thereby fostering a more efficient judicial process in handling narcotics-related offenses.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.