Application filed seeking expedited disposal of delayed NDPS prosecution where the accused remained in custody for years without witnesses being examined, citing constitutional mandates for speedy trial.
Direction issued to the trial court to conclude the proceeding expeditiously within one year without unnecessary adjournments.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. 32 Item 106 ssi 12.02. 2021
C.R.R. 356 of 2021
In the matter of:- Soumen Saha @ Babusona
Mr. Sudip Ghosh Chowdhury Mr. Argha Das Mr. Abhishek Bose
…for the petitioner
Mr. Md. Anwar Hossain Mr. Mirza Firoj Ahmed Begg ….for the State
This is an application seeking an expeditious disposal of a proceeding in which a charge sheet was submitted under Section 20 (b) (ii) (c) of the NDPS Act.
Let a copy of the application be served upon Mr. Md. Anwar Hossain and Mr. M.F.A. Begg, learned advocates, who are present in court today and who ordinarily appear on behalf of the State. Their engagement may be regularised in due course by the competent authority of the State.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. The petitioner is an accused in this case. He is in custody since his date of arrest that is to say, 23.02.2018. Although the impugned proceeding was started in November, 2018 and even the charges were framed on 06.08.2019, till date, not a single witness could be examined in this case. The proceeding has remained
2
pending for no fault of the present petitioner. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that it will be in the interest of justice if the direction is passed to expedite the proceeding.
I have heard the submissions of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the State and have perused the revision petition.
No prejudice will be caused to any one, if a direction is passed for expediting the proceeding.
It appears that an inordinate delay has been occasioned in this case, especially considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 23.02.2018.
In view of the above and in the interest of justice, I request the learned trial Court to conclude the proceeding as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties, preferably within a period of one year from the next date of hearing.
With these observations, the revisional application is disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copies of this order may be delivered to the learned Advocates for the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all formalities.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a direction should be issued to expedite the trial proceedings given the inordinate delay and the petitioner's prolonged custody.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Soumen Saha @ Babusona
State
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
