TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether prolonged custody and delay in trial of an NDPS case justified grant of bail on the ground of violation of the right to speedy trial. (ii) What procedure Sessions Courts or Special Courts must follow in NDPS cases instituted on complaints or offence reports otherwise than on police reports.
Issue (i): Whether prolonged custody and delay in trial of an NDPS case justified grant of bail on the ground of violation of the right to speedy trial.
Analysis: The accused had remained in custody for more than five years and the trial had remained pending for about a decade. The right to speedy trial was treated as part of Article 21 and was applied to prevent continued deprivation of personal liberty where there was no near possibility of conclusion of trial. The Court accepted that, in the circumstances, continued custody would be oppressive and contrary to fair procedure.
Conclusion: Bail was granted in favour of the accused on the ground of prolonged custody and delay in trial.
Issue (ii): What procedure Sessions Courts or Special Courts must follow in NDPS cases instituted on complaints or offence reports otherwise than on police reports.
Analysis: The NDPS Act was read as a special enactment containing special provisions for cognizance and trial, while the Code of Criminal Procedure applies to the extent not inconsistent with the Act. Since offences punishable with more than three years are triable by Special Courts and, in the absence of such courts, by Sessions Courts, the Court held that the procedure applicable to a Court of Session governs such trials. The requirement of direct filing of complaints in the Sessions Court or Special Court, together with the object of speedy disposal, supported adoption of Chapter XVIII procedure, with the necessary preliminary steps under the Code where complaints are filed directly.
Conclusion: Sessions Courts and Special Courts must follow the procedure laid down in Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure for such NDPS trials.
Final Conclusion: The application succeeded, bail was granted, and the trial courts were directed to conduct complaint-based NDPS trials as sessions trials under the applicable special statutory framework.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a special penal statute provides for trial by Special Court or Sessions Court and the statutory scheme is consistent with the Code only to the extent not excluded, complaint-based prosecutions for such offences are to be tried by the sessions procedure, and prolonged pre-trial incarceration cannot be allowed to defeat the constitutional right to speedy trial.
TaxTMI 
