THANA SINGHversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF NARCOTICS

                    (2013) 2 S.C.R. 899


                         THANA SINGH                                    A
                                 v.
            CENTRAL BUREAU OF NARCOTICS
             (Criminal Appeal No. 1640 of 2010)
                       JANUARY 23, 2013
                                                                        B
     [D.K. JAIN AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.]

      Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 32, 21 and 141 -
Appeal of accused for an offence under Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) - Seeking bail -                 C
Accused denied bail and was languishing in jail for 12 years
awaiting commencement of trial - Supreme Court granted bail
- Also issued notice to all the Sates taking cognizance of
status quo and gain a first-hand account about the state of
trials in cases under NDPS Act pending in all the States -              o
Directions and guidelines issued - The practice of granting
adjournments lavishly to be abolished - Fourth proviso to s.
309 (2) Cr.P.C. (inserted bys. 21(b) of Act 5 of 2009), which
awaits notification, deserves immediate notification - Till the
statutory provisions are in place, the Court directed that no           E
NDPS court to grant adjournment at the request of the party
except where circumstances beyond control of the party and
where hearing date fixed as per convenience of the counsel,
no adjournment to be granted without exception - A provision
analogous to s. 22(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act should            F
be legislated for trials under NDPS Act - Courts directed to
adopt method of 'sessions trial' anq conduct examination and
cross-examination of a witness on consecutive dates over a
block period of three to four days - The courts to take evidence
of official witnesses in the form of affidavit as per s. 293 Cr. P. C   G
- States are directed to establish Special Courts to deal
exclusively with offences under NDPS Act - The number of
these Courts must be proportionate to and sufficient for
handling the volume of pending cases - Till the establishment
                                899                                     H
    900     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013) 2 S.C.R.


A of exclusive .NDPS Court, the NDPS cases would be
  prioritized over all other matters - More number of Central
  Forensic Science Laboratories (CFSL) must be established,
  so as to cater to the needs from different parts of the country-
  Each State directed to establish State level and regional level
8 forensic  science laboratories J Directorate of Forensic Science
  Services directed to take special steps to ensure
  standardization of equipments and to address the problem
  of shortage of staff in the existing laboratories - Request as
  to re-testing/re-sampling not to be entertained under NDPS
C Act, as a matter of course - Nodal Officers (equivalent or
  superior to the rank of Superintendent of Police) to be
  appointed in all the departments dealing with NDPS cases
  for monitoring the progress of investigation and trial - There
  must be one 'Pairvi Offier' or other such officers for e~ch court
  who shall report the days's proceedings to the Nodal Officer -
0 Appointment of Special Public Prosecutors for the Central
  Bureau of Narcotics should be in line with the procedure
  followed as mandated u/s. 24 Cr.P.C - For simplification of
  procedure u/s. 207 Cr.P. C, directed that filing of charge-sheet
  and supply of other documents to be in electronic form -
E Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 -
  Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 309(2) Proviso 4 (as
  inserted bys. 21(b) of Act 5 of2009); ss. 293, 207 and 24 -
  Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - s. 22(c).

F     Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing
  Undertria/Prisoners vs. Union of India and Ors. (1994) 6 SCC
  731: 1994 (4) Suppl. SCR 386; Achint Navinbhai Patel vs.
  State of Gujarat and Anr. (2002) 10 SCC 529; Hussainara
  Khatoon and Ors. vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1980)
G 1 sec 81: 1979 (3) SCR 169 - relied on.

         State of Kera/a vs. Deepak. P. Shah 2001 CriLJ 2690;
    Nihal Khan vs. The State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) 2007 CriLJ
    207 4 • referred to.

H
      THANA SINGH v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF                  901
                 NARCOTICS
     Antonio Richard Rochin vs. People of the State of A
California 96 L. Ed. 183 (1951) - referred to.
                    Case Law Reference:
    1994 (4) Suppl. SCR 386        Relied on      Para 1
                                                                B
    (2002) 1o sec 529              Relied on      Para 1
    96 L. Ed. 183 (1951)           Referred to    Para 2
    1979 (3) SCR 169               Relied on      Para 8
    2001 CriLJ 2690                Referred to    Para 23       c
    2007 CrlLJ 207 4               Referred to    Para 23

    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1640 of 2010.
                                                                D
    From the Judgment & Order dated 07.10.2009 of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore in Misc. Criminal
Case No. 6036 of 2009.

     P.P. Malhotra, ASG, A. Mariarputham, AG, J.S. Attri, Dr.   E
Manish Singhvi, Ajay Bansal, Manjit Singh, AAG, Sunil Verma,
G.B. Singh, Pradeep Kumar Kaushik, Prasoon Kumar Mishra,
Sanjay Sharawat, Anitha Shenoy (A.C.), Yasif Rauf, Priyanka
Bharihoke, R.K. Rathore, Rashmi Malhotra, M. Khairati, D.S.
Mahra, B.K. Prasad, Shreekant N. Terdal, Anil Katiyar, Amit     F
Lubhaya, lrshad Ahmad, Sunil K. Jain, Sachin Sharma,
Devendra Singh, Kuldip Singh, Pardaman Singh, Dheeraj
Gupta, Rajiv Kumar, Gaurav Yadav, Gunnam Venkateswara
Rao, Ashok K. Srivastava, A.D.N. Rao, Neelam Jain, C.D.
Singh, Ashok Mathur, Atul Jha, Sandeep Jha, D.K. Sinha, S.
Gowthaman, P.I. Jose, Gopal Singh, Manish Kumar, Chandan        G
Kumar, Gopal Prasad, Ritu Raj Biswas (for Hemantika Wahi),
Pinky, Ena Tolani.Shubhada Deshpande, Naresh K. Sharma,
Ranjan Mukherjee, Khwairakpam Nobin Singh, Anil Srivastav,
Vartika Sahay Walia (for Corporate Law Group), Dr. Abhishek
                                                                H
    902        SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013) 2 S.C.R.

A   Atrey, Ashootosh Sharma, Brijesh Panchal, Aishverya
    Shandilya, Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Yogesh Kanna, Asha G.
    Nair, Vibha Datta Makhija, Archi Agnihotri, Pragyan P. Sharma,
    Mankakini Sharma, P.V. Yogeshwaran, Suresh Ch. Tripathy,
    G.S. Chatterjee, K. Enatoli Serna, Balaji Srinivasan, V.G.
B   Pragasam, Aruna Mathur, Yusuf Khan (for Arputham Aruna &
    Co.), Tarjit Singh Chikkara, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Siddharth
    Bhatnagar, Pawan Kumar Bansal, T. Mahipal, D. Mahesh
    Babu, Mayur R. Shah, Amit K. Nain, Amjid Maqbool, T.V.
    Ratnam, Sunil Fernandes, Astha Sharma, Vernika Tomar, lnsha
c   Mir, Bina Madhavan, T.G.N. Nair, K.N. Madhusoodhanan, Avijit
    Bhattacharjee, Anip Sachthey, Mohit Paul, Shagun Matta,
    Saakar Sardana, A. Subhashini, Aniruddha P. Mayee, Rucha
    A. Mayee for the appearing parties.
           The following order of the Court was delivered by
D
                                 ORDER

        1. This order, and its accompanying directions, are an
  outcome of the bail matter in Thana Singh Vs. Central Bureau
  of Narcotics listed before this bench, wherein an accused, who
E
  had been languishing in prison for more than twelve years,
  awaiting the commencement of his trial for an offence under
  the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
  (hereinafter referred to as the "NDPS Act"), was consistently
  denied bail, even by the High Court. Significantly, the maximum
F punishment for the offence the accused was incarcerated for,
  is twenty years; hence, the undertrial had remained in detention
  for a period exceeding one-half of the maximum period of
  imprisonment. An express pronouncement of this Court in the
  case of Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing
G Undertrial Prisoners Vs. Union of India & Ors. 1, which held that
  '.'where the undertrial accused is charged with an offence(s)
  under the Act punishable with minimum imprisonment of ten
  years and a minimum fine of rupees one lakh, such an undertrial

H   1.    (1994) e sec 731.
        THANA SINGH v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF                       903
                   NARCOTICS
shall be released on bail if he has been in jail for not less than     A
five years provided he furnishes bail in the sum of rupees one
lakh with two sureties for like amount", finds constrained
applicability in respect of cases under the NDPS Act, in light
of Section 37 of the Act. Therefore, this Court in Achint
Navinbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. 2 observed that "it        s
has been repeatedly stressed that NDPS cases should be tried
as early as possible because in such cases normally accused
are not released on bail."

     2. We are reminded of Justice Felix Frankfurter's immortal
words in Antonio Richard Rochin Vs. People of the State of             C
California 3 , coincidentally a case pertaining to narcotics,
wherein he described some types of conduct by state agents,
although not specifically prohibited by explicit language in the
Constitution, as those that "shock the conscience" in that they
offend "those canons of decency and fairness which express             D
the notions of justice." Due process of law requires the state
to observe those principles that are "so rooted in the traditions
and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental."
The general state of affairs pertaining to trials of offences under
the NDPS Act deserves a similar description.                           E

     3. The laxity with which we throw citizens into prison reflects
our lack of appreciation for the tribulations of incarceration; the
callousness with which we leave them there reflects our lack of
deference for humanity. It also reflects our imprudence when           F
our prisons are bursting at their seams. For the prisoner himself,
imprisonment for the purposes of trial is as ignoble as
imprisonment on conviction for an offence, since the damning
finger and opprobrious eyes of society draw no difference
between the two. The plight of the undertrial seems to gain            G
focus only on a solicitous inquiry by this Court, and soon after,
quickly fades into the backdrop.


2.   c2002) 10 sec 529.
3.   96 L.Ed. 183 (1951)                                               H
    904      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 2 S.C.R.


A      4. Therefore, bearing in mind the aforesaid imperatives.
  after granting the deserved bail in that case, we decided to take'
  cognizance of status quo and gain a first-hand account about
  the state of trials in such like cases pending in all the states.
  Accordingly, vide order dated 30.08.2010, we issued notice
B to all states through their Chief Secretaries to file affidavits
  furnishing information of all cases under the NDPS Act where
  the undertrial has been incarcerated for a period exceeding five
  years. In pursuance of the same, we received the valuable
  assistance of the Additional Solicitor General of India, Mr. P.
c P. Malhotra, learned amicus curiae, Ms. Anita Shenoy; Mr. R.
  K. Gauba, District and Sessions Judge (South), Saket, New
  Delhi; Registrar Generals of High Courts; Director General,
  Narcotics Control Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, senior-
  most Officer-in-Charge of Investigations and Prosecution for
  offences under the NDPS Act; representatives of the
0
  Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (ORI), Customs and Excise
  Departments and Police of the States concerned.

       5. We lay down the directions and guidelines specified
  hereinafter for due observance by all concerned as the law
E declared by this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of
  India. This is done in exercise of the power available under
  Article 32 of the Constitution for enforcement of fundamental
  rights, especially the cluster of fundamental rights incorporated
  under Article 21, which stand flagrantly violated due to the state
F of affairs of trials under the NDPS Act. We would like to clarify
  that these directions are restricted only to the proceedings
  under the NDPS Act.

    DIRECTIONS

G A. Adjournments

       6. The lavishness with which adjournments are granted is
  not an ailment exclusive to narcotics trials; courts at every level
  suffer from this predicament. The institutionalization of generous
H dispensation of adjournments is exploited to prolong trials for
      THANA SINGH v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF                    905
                 NARCOTICS
varied considerations.                                            A
     7. Such a practice deserves complete abolishment. The
legislature enacted a crucial amendment in the form of a fourth
proviso to Section 309(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (through Section 21 (b) of Act 5 of 2009) to tackle the
                                                                  8
problem, but the same awaits notification. Once notified,
Section 309 will read as follows: -

    "309. Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings.

    (1) In every inquiry or trial the proceedings shall be held   c
    as expeditiously as possible, and in particular, when the
    examination of witnesses has once begun, the same shall
    be continued from day to day until all the witnesses in
    attendance have been examined, unless the Court finds
    the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to       0
    be necessary for reasons to be recorded.

    (2) If the Court after taking cognizance of an offence, or
    commencement of trial, finds it necessary or advisable to
    postpone the commencement of, or adjourn, any inquiry or
    trial, it may, from time to time, for reasons to be recorded, E
    postpone or adjourn the same on such terms as it thinks
    fit, for such time as it considers reasonable, and may by
    a warrant remand the accused if in custody: •

    Provided that no Magistrate shall remand an accused           F
    person to custody under this section for a ten'n exceeding
    fifteen days at a time:

    Provided further that when witnesses are in attendance, no
    adjournment or postponement shall be granted, without
    examining them, except for special reasons to be recorded G
    in writing:

    Provided also that no adjournment shall be granted for the
    purpose only of enabling the accused person to show
                                                                  H
    906       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013) 2 S.C.R.


A         cause against the sentence proposed to be imposed on
          him

          Provided also that-

          (a) no adjournment shall be granted at the request of a
B         party. except where the circumstances are beyond the
          control of that party:

          (b) the fact that the pleader of a party is engaged in another
          Court. shall not be a ground or adjournment:
c
          (c) where a witness is present in Court but a party or his
          pleader is not present or the party or his pleader though
          present in Court. is not ready to examine or cross-
          examine the witness. the Court may. if thinks fit. record
          the statement of the witness and pass such orders as it
D
          thinks fit dispensing with the examination-in-chief or cross-
          examination of the witness. as the case may be
                  Explanation 1.- If sufficient evidence has been
                  obtained to raise a suspicion that the accused may
E                 have committed an offence, and it appears likely
                  that further evidence may be obtained by a remand,
                  this is a reasonable cause for a remand.
                  Explanation 2.- The terms on which an adjournment
                  or postponement may be granted include, in
F                 appropriate cases, the payment of costs by the
                  prosecution or the accused."

                                                 [Emphasis supplied]

G         8. The fourth proviso deserves immediate notification. In
    lieu of the lacuna created by its conspicuous absence, which
    is interfering with the fundamental right of speedy trial [See:
    Hussainara Khatoon and Ors. Vs. Home Secretary, State of
    Bihar4], something this Court is duty- bound to protect and
H   4.   (1980) 1 sec 81.
       THANA SINGH v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF                      907
                  NARCOTICS
uphold, and till the statutory provisions are in place, we direct A
that no NDPS court would grant adjournments at the request
of a party except where the circumstances are beyond the
control of the party. This exception must be treated as an
exception, and must not be allowed to swallow the generic rule
against grant of adjournments. Further, where the date for B
hearing has been fixed as per the convenience of the counsel,
no adjournment shall be granted without exception. Adherence
                          a
to this principle would go long way in cutting short that queue
to the doors of justice.

    9. Perhaps, a provision analogous to Section 22(c) of the C
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 may be seriously
considered by the legislature for trials under the NDPS Act. It
reads as fpllow:

     "22. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , to apply D
     subject to certain modifications.- The provisions of the
     Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974 .), shall in
     their application to any proceeding in relation to an offence
     punishable under this Act have effect as if,-
                                                                   E
     xxx                      xxx                   xxx
     (c) after sub- section (2) of section 317, the following sub-
     section had been inserted, namely:-

     '(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1)  F
     or sub-section (2), the Judge may, if he thinks fit and for
     reasons to be recorded by him, proceed with inquiry or trial
     in the absence of the accused or his pleader and record
     the evidence of any witness subject to the right of the
     accused to recall the witness for cross- examination."       G
B. Examination of Witnesses

    10. Between harmonizing the rights and duties of the
accused and the victim, the witness is often forgotten. No legal
system can render justice if it is not accompanied with a            H
    908       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    (2013] 2 S.C.R.


A   conducive environment that encourages and invites witnesses
    to give testimony. The web of antagonistic litigation with its
    entangled threads of investigation, cross-examination, dealings
    with the police etc., as it is, lacks the ability to attract witnesses
    to participate in a process of justice; it is baffling that
B   nonetheless, systems of examination that sprout more
    disincentives for a witness to take the stand are established.
    Often, conclusion of examination alone, keeping aside cross-
    examination of witnesses, takes more than a day. Yet, they are
    not examined on consecutive days, but on different dates
c   spread out over months. This practice serves as a huge
    inconvenience to a witness since he is repeatedly required to
    incur expenditure on travel and logistics for appearance in
    hearings over a significant period of time. Besides, it often
    causes unnecessary repetition in terms of questioning and
0   answering, and also places greater reliance on one's ever-
    fading memory, than necessary. All these factors together
    cause lengthier examinations that compound the duration of
    trials.

         11. It would be prudent to return to the erstwhile method
E   of holding "session's trials" i.e. conducting examination and
    cross-examination of a witness on consecutive days over a
    block period of three to four days. This permits a witness to
    take the stand after making one-time arrangements for travel
    and accommodation, after which, he is liberated from his civil
F   duties qua a particular case. Therefore, this Court directs the
    concerned courts to adopt the method of "session's trials" and
    assign block dates for examination of witnesses.

        12. The Narcotics Control Board also pointed out that since
G   operations for prevention of crimes related to narcotic drugs
    and substances demands coordination of several different
    agencies viz. Central Bureau of Narcotics (CBN), Narcotics
    Control Bureau (NCB), Department of Revenue Intelligence
    (ORI), Department of Custom and Central Excise, State Law
H   Enforcement Agency, State Excise Agency to name a few,
      THANA SINGH v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF                       909
                 NARCOTICS
procuring attendance of different officers of these agencies         A
becomes difficult. On the completion of investigation for
instance, investigating officers return to their parent
organizations and are thus, often unavailable as prosecution
witnesses. In light of the recording of such official evidence, we
direct the concerned courts to make most of Section 293 of           B
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and save time by taking
evidence from official witnesses in the form of affidavits. The
relevant section reads as follows:-

    "293. Reports of certain Government scientific                   C
    experts.

    (1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand
    of a Government scientific expert to whom this section
    applies, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for
    examination or analysis and report in the course of any          D
    proceeding under this Code, may be used as evidence in
    any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code.

     (2) The Court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine
     any such expert as to the subject- matter of his report.
                                                                     E
    (3) Where any such expert is summoned by a Court and
    he is unable to attend personally, he may, unless the Court
    has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute
    any responsible officer working with him to attend the Court,
    if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and     F
    can satisfactorily depose in Court on his behalf.

    (4) This section applies to fhe following Government
    scientific experts, namely:-

    ( a) any Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical                 G
    Examiner to Government;

    (b) the Chief Controller of Explosives;

    (c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau;                     H
    910            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 2 S.C.R.


A         (d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;

          (e) the Director, Deputy Director or Assistant Director of
          a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic
          Science Laboratory;
B         (f) the Serologist to the Government."

          (g) any other Government scientific expert specified, by
          notification, by the Central Government for this purpose.

C C. Workload
       13. The courts are unduly overburdened, an outcome of the
  diverse repertoire of cases they are expected to handle. We
  are informed by the Narcotics Control Board that significant
  time of the NDPS Court is expended in dealing with bail and
D other criminal matters. Besides, many states do not even have
  the necessary NDPS courts to deal with the volume of NDPS
  cases.
        14. Therefore, we issue the following directions in this
    regard:
E
           (i)      Each state, in consultation with the High Court,
                    particularly the states of Uttar Pradesh, West
                    Bengal and Jammu & Kashmir (where the
                    pendency of cases over five years is stated to be
F                   high), is directed to establish Special Courts which
                    would deal exclusively with offences under the
                    NDPS Act.
           (ii)     The number of these courts must be proportionate
                    to, and sufficient for, handling the volume of pending
G                   cases in the State.
           (iii)    Till exclusive courts for the purpose of disposing of
                    NDPS cases under the NDPS Act are established,
                    these cases will be prioritized over all other matters;
                    after the setting up of the special courts for NDPS
H                   cases, only after the clearance of matters under the
       THANA SINGH v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF                      911
                  NARCOTICS
             NDPS Act will an NDPS court be permitted to take       A
             up any other matter.

D. Narcotics Labs

      15. Narcotics laboratories at the national level identify
drugs for abuse and their accompanying substances in B
suspected samples, determine the purity and the possible
origin of illicit drugs, carry out drug-related research, particularly
on new sources of drugs liable to abuse, and, when required
by the police or courts of law, provide supportive expertise in
drug trafficking cases. Their role in the effective implementation C
of the mandate of the NDPS Act is indispensible which is why
every state or region must have proximate access to these
laboratories so that samples collected for the purposes of the
Act may be sent on a timely basis to them for scrutiny. These
samples often form primary and clinching evidence for both the o
prosecution and the defence, making their evaluation by
narcotics laboratories a crucial exercise.

    16. The numbers of these laboratories speak for
themselves and are reproduced here. The numbers for Central
Forensic Science Laboratories (CFSL) are as follows: -              E

 S. No        CFSL Location                        Status

  1.          Chandigarh                      In operation
                                                                    F
 2.           Hyderabad                       In operation

 3.           Kolkata                         In operation

 4.           Delhi (Under Central Bureau In operation
              of Investigation)                                    G

 5.           Bhopal                          Being established

 6.           Pune                            Being established

 7.           Guwahati                        Being established     H
         -
    912       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013) 2 S.C.R.


A       17. Similarly, numbers for the state and regional Forensic
    Science Laboratories (FSL) are as follows:-
     S. No.      Name of State       Existing State Facilities
                                     Main State FSL Regional FSL

B    1.         Andhra Pradesh            1               9
     2.         Arunachal Pradesh         1               0
     3.         Assam                     1               0
c    4.         Bihar                     1               1
     5.         Chattisgarh               1               2
     6.         Goa                  Being established    0

D
     7.         Gujarat                   1               5
     8.         Haryana                   1               2
     9.         Himachal Pradesh          1               0
     10.        Jammu & Kashmir           1               1
E
     11.        Jharkhand                 1               0
     12.        Karnataka                 1               4
     13.        Kera la                   1               2
F
     14.        Madhya Pradesh            1               3
     15.        Maharashtra               1               4
     16.        Manipur                   1               0
G    17.        Meghalaya                 1               0
     18.        Mizoram                   1               0
     19.        Nagaland                  1               0
H    20.         Orissa                   1               2
          THANA SINGH v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF                      913
                     NARCOTICS

 21.               Punjab                 1                0          A

 22.               Rajasthan              1                3

  23.              Sikkim                 0                1

  24.              Tamil Nadu             1                9          B
  25.              Tripura                1                0
  26.              Uttar Pradesh          1.               2

  27.              Uttarakhand            1                0          c
 28.               West Bengal            1                2

 UNION TERRITORIES

  1.               Andaman and Nicobar        1            0          D
                   Islands

  2.               Chandigarh                 0            0

  3.               Dadra & Nagar Haveli       0            0
                                                                      E
 4.                Daman & Diu                0            0

 5.                Lakshadweep                0            0

 6.                NCT of Delhi               1            0          F

 7.                Puducherry                 0            0
               .

                   TOTAL                  28               52
      18. A qualitative and quantitative overhaul of these G
laboratories is necessary for ameliorating the present state of
affairs, for which, we are issuing the following directions:
        (i)   The Centre must ensure equal access to CFSL's
              from different parts of the country. The current four
              CFSL's only cater to the needs of northern and          H
    914          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 2 S.C.R.


A                 some areas of western and eastern parts of the
                  country. Therefore, besides the three in the pipeline,
                  more CFSL's must be established, especially to
                  cater to the needs of southern and eastern parts of
                  the country.
B         (ii)    Analogous directions are issued to the states.
                  Several states do not possess any existing
                  infrastructure to facilitate analysis of samples and
                  are hence, compelled to send them to laboratories
                  in other parts of the country for scrutiny. Therefore,
C                 each state is required to establish state level and
                  regional level forensic science laboratories.
                  However, the decision as to the numbers of such
                  laboratories would depend on the backlog of cases
                  in the state.
D          19. The above mentioned authorities must ensure
    adequate employment of technical staff and provision of
    facilities and resources for the purposes of proper, smooth and
    efficient running of the facilities of Forensic Science
    Laboratories under them and the Laboratories should furnish
E   their reports expeditiously to the concerned agencies.
         20. The Directorate of Forensic Science Services, Ministry
    of Home Affarrs, must take special steps to ensure
    standardization of equipment across the various forensic
    laboratories to prevent vacillating results and disallow a litigant
F
    an opportunity to challenge test results on that basis.
    E. Personnel
         21. We have also been apprised of the following vacancies
    at three CFSLs, namely Chandigarh, Kolkata and Hyderabad.
G
          Posts         Sanctioned         Filled       Vacant

          Scientific         99              64            35
          Technical          45              40            05
H
      THANA SINGH v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF                      915
                 NARCOTICS
     Shortage of staff is bound to hamper with the smooth          A
functioning of these laboratories, and hence, we direct the
Directorate of Forensic Science Services, Ministry of Home
Affairs to address the same on an urgent basis.

    22. Further, steps must be taken by the concerned              B
departments to improve the quality and expertise of the
technical staff, equipment and testing laboratories.

E. Re-testing Provisions

      23. The NDPS Act itself does not permit re-sampling or c
re-testing of samples. Yet, there has been a trend to the
contrary; NDPS courts have been consistently obliging to
applications for re-testing and re- sampling. These applications
add to delays as they are often received at advanced stages
of trials after significant elapse of time. NDPS courts seem to D
be permitting re-testing nonetheless by taking resort to either
some High Court judgments [See: State of Kera/a Vs. Deepak.
P. Shah 5 ; Niha/ Khan Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) 6 ) or
perhaps to Sections 79 and 80 of the NDPS Act which permit
application of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Drugs and E
Cosmetics Act, 1940. While re-testing may be an important
right of an accused, the haphazard manner in which the right
is imported from other legislations without its accompanying
restrictions, however, is impermissible. Under the NDPS Act,
re-testing and re-sampling is rampant at every stage of the trial
contrary to other legislations which define a specific time-frame . F
within which the right may be available. Besides, reverence
must also be given to the wisdom of the Legislature when it
expressly omits a provision, which otherwise appears as a
standard one in other legislations. The Legislature, unlike for
the NDPS Act, enacted Section 25(4) of the Drugs and G
Cosmetics Act, 1940, Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rule 56 of the Central Excise Rules,
1944, permitting a time period of thirty, ten and twenty days
S. 2001 CriU 2690.
6. 2007 CriLJj 2074.                                                H
     916       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 2 S.C.R.


·A   respectively for filing an application for re- testing

           24. Hence, it is imperative to define re-testing rights, if at
     all, as an amalgamation of the above- stated factors. Further,
     in light of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, which permits swift
     disposal of some hazardous substances, the time frame within
8
     which any application for re-testing may be permitted ought to
     be strictly defined. Section 52A of the NDPS Act reads as
     follows: -

           "52A. Disposal of seized narcotic drugs and
c          psychotropic substances

           (1) The Central Government may, having regard to the
           hazardous nature of any narcotic drugs or psychotropic
           substances, their vulnerability to theft, substitution,
D          constraints of proper storage space or any other relevant
           considerations, by notification published in the Official
           Gazette, specify such narcotic drugs or psychotropic
           substances or class of narcotic drugs or class of
           psychotropic substances which shall, as soon as may be
           after their seizure, be disposed of by such officer and in ·
E
           such manner as that Government may from time to time,
           determine after following the procedure herein- after
           specified.

           (2) Where any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance has
F          been seized and forwarded to the officer- in- charge of the
           nearest police station or to the officer empowered under
           section 53, the officer referred to in sub- section (1) shall
           prepare an inventory of such narcotic drugs or psychotropic
           substances containing such details relating to their
G          description, quality, quantity, mode of packing, marks,
           numbers or such other identifying particulars of the narcotic
           drugs or psychotropic substances or the packing in which
           they are packed, country of origin and other particulars as
           the officer referred to in sub- section (1) may consider
H          relevant to the identity of the narcotic drugs or psychotropic
      THANA SINGH v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF                       917
                 NARCOTICS
    substances in any proceedings under this Act and make           A
    an application, to any Magistrate for the purpose of-

    (a) certifying the correctness of the inventory so prepared;
    or

    (b) taking, in the presence of such magistrate, photographs     B
    of such drugs or substances and certifying such
    photographs as true; or

    (c) allowing to draw representative samples of such drugs
    or substances, in the presence of such magistrate and           C
    certifying the correctness of any list of samples so drawn.

    (3) Where an application is made under sub- section (2),
    the Magistrate shall, as soon as may be, allow the
    application.
                                                                    D
    (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian
    Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872 ), or the Code of Criminal
    Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974 ), every court trying an offence
    under this Act, shall treat the inventory, the photographs of
    narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances and any list of       E
    samples drawn under sub- section (2) and certified by the
    Magistrate, as primary evidence in respect of such
    offence."

     25. Therefore, keeping in mind the array of factors            F
discussed above, we direct that, after the completion of
necessary tests by the concerned laboratories, results of the
same must be furnished to all parties concerned with the
matter. Any requests as to re-testing/re-sampling shall not be
entertained under the NDPS Act as a matter of course. These
may, however, be permitted, in extremely exceptional                G
circumstances, for cogent reasons to be recorded by the
Presiding Judge. An application in such rare cases must be
made within a period of fifteen days of the receipt of the test
report; no applications for re-testing/re-sampling shall be
entertained thereafter. However, in the absence of any              H
    918      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 2 S.C.R.


A   compelling circumstances, any form of re-testing/re-sampling
    is strictly prohibited under the NDPS Act.

    G. Monitoring

         26. A monitoring agency is pivotal for the effective
B management of these recommendations and for the general
  amelioration of the state of affairs. Therefore, it is directed that
  nodal officers be appointed in all the departments dealing with
  the NDPS cases, for monitoring the progress of investigation
  and trial. This nodal officer must be equivalent or superior to
C the rank of Superintendent of Police, who shall ensure that the
  trial is not delayed on account of non-supply of documents, non-
  availability of the witnesses, or for any other reason.

       27. We have also learnt from the Narcotics Control Bureau
D that some form of informational asymmetry is prevalent with
  respect to the communication of the progress of cases between
  courts and the department. Therefore, there must be one Pairvi
  Officer or other such officer for each court who shall report the
  day's proceedings to the nodal officer assigned for that court.

E H. Public Prosecutors

         28. Public prosecutors play the most important role in the
   administration of justice. Their quality is thus of profound
   importance to the speed and outcome of trials. We have been
F informed that Special Public Prosecutors for the Central Bureau
   of Narcotics are appointed by the Ministry of Home Affairs after
   scrutiny by the Ministry of Law and Justice, on the ·
   recommendation of the District and Sessions Judge
  _concerned. We suggest that the procedure of appointment,
G placed before us, be brought in line with that generally followed
   for the appointment of public prosecutors, as mandated under
   Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. However,
   for the present, we direct that the District and Sessions Judge
   shall make recommendations for such appointments in
H consultation with the Administrative Judge/Portfolio Judge/
      THANA SINGH v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF                      919
                 NARCOTICS
Inspecting Judge, incharge of looking after the administration      A
of the concerned Sessions Division.

I. Other Recommendations.

    29. Delays are caused due to demands of compliance with
Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which           8
reads as follows:-

    "207. Supply to the accused of copy of police report
    and other documents. In any case where the proceeding
    has been instituted on a police report, the Magistrate shall    c
    without delay furnish to the accused, free of cost, a copy
    of each of the following:-

    (i) the police report;

    (ii) the first information report recorded under section 154;   D

     (iii) the statements recorded under sub-. section (3) of
     section 161 of all persons whom the prosecution proposes
   . to examine as its witnesses, excluding therefrom any part
     in regard to which a request for such exclusion has been E
     made by the police officer under sub- section (6) of section
     173;

    (iv) the confessions and statements, if any, recorded under
    section 164;
                                                                    F
    (v) any other document or relevant extract thereof
    forwarded to the Magistrate with the police report under
    sub- section (5) of section 173:

    Provided that the Magistrate may, after perusing any such G
    part of a statement as is referred to in clause (iii) and
    considering the reasons given by the police officer for the
    request, direct that a copy of that part of the statement or
    of such portion thereof as the Magistrate thinks proper,
    shall be furnished to the accused:
                                                                 H
    920       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 2 S.C.R.


A         Provided further that if the Magistrate is satisfied that any
          document referred to in clause (v) is voluminous, he shall,
          instead of furnishing the accused with a copy thereof, direct
          that he will only be allowed to inspect it either personally
          or through pleader in Court."
B
    For the simplification of the above detailed process, we direct
    that the filing of the charge- sheet and supply of other
    documents must also be provided in electronic form. However,
    this direction must not be treated as a substitute for hard copies
    of the same which are indispensable for court proceedings.
c
        30. We expect and hope that the aforesaid directions shall
    be complied with by the Central Government, State
    Governments and the Union Territories, as the case may be,
    expeditiously and in the spirit that these have been made.
D
         31. Before parting, we place on record our deep
    appreciation for the able assistance rendered to us by the
    learned Additional Solicitor General; amicus curiae; Mr. Utkarsh
    Saxena, Law Clerk-cum-Research Assistant and all the officers
E   who were requested to participate in the deliberations.

          32. The matter stands closed.

    K.K.T.                                      Appeal disposed of.