An NDPS trial accused in custody for three years sought a mandamus for speedy trial of Spl.C.C.No.933/2022. Relying on Dilawar, the High Court directed the Special Court for NDPS Cases to dispose the case within six months, keeping other contentions open.
Direction to dispose Spl.C.C.No.933/2022 within six months from receipt of the order's copy.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 21744 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
MR NIHAL S S/O SHRI SUNIL L N., AGED 28 YEARS, R/AT NO.3, 7TH CROSS, GOVINDAPPA LAYOUT, HORAMAVU AGARA, BANGALORE - 560043.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HASHMATH PASHA, SENIOR ADV. FOR SRI. MOHAMMED MUBARAK, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AND:
(REPRESENTED BY LEARNED SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR CUSTOMS HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA)
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME AND LAW, VIDHANA SOUDA, BANGALORE
(REPRESENTED BY LEARNED GOVERNMENT ADOVCATE,
OFFICE OF ADVOCATE GENERAL,
HIGH COURT OF AKRNATAKA
BANGALORE)
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE
NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREA BANGALORE ZONAL OFFICE
BANGALORE
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.N. KUMAR, ADV. FOR R1; SRI. JAGADEESHA B.N., ADDL. SPP FOR R2; SRI. MADHUKAR M. DESHPANDE, ADV. FOR R3; SRI. S. RAJASHEKHAR, ADV. FOR R4)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 PRAYING TO DIRECT THE HONBLE XXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR NDPS CASE, BANGALORE CITY, TO DISPOSE OFF THE CASE OF PETITIONER IN SPL.C.C.NO. 933/2022 AS PER ANNX-B ON ITS FILE WITHIN THREE MONTHS AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
NC: 2024:KHC:39123 WP No. 21744 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned Senior counsel Sri.Hashmath Pasha, for the learned counsel Sri.Mohammed Mubarak, appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel Sri.M.N.Kumar, appearing for respondent No.1, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor Sri.Jagadeesha B.N., appearing for respondent No.2, the learned counsel Sri.Madhukar M. Deshpande, appearing for respondent No.3 and the learned counsel Sri.S.Rajashekhar, appearing for respondent No.4.
Customs that they tracked the dummy parcel through the Regional Post Office Horamavu on 23.10.2021. The postman was entrusted with the duty of window delivery, who did not do so, but delivered this dummy parcel to the petitioner. The petitioner was then apprehended and crime was registered against him for offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 22(c), 23(c) and 27 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act' for short).
" 6. We have come across a number of cases where investigations remain pending for unduly long time
1 (2018) 16 SCC 521
which is not conducive to administration of criminal justice. There is, thus, clear need for timelines for completing investigation and for having in-house oversight mechanism wherein accountability for adhering to laid down timelines can be fixed at different levels in the hierarchy.
7. It is not necessary to refer to all the decisions of this Court articulating the mandate of the Constitution that there is implicit right under Article 21 for speedy trial which in turn encompasses speedy investigation, inquiry, appeal, revision and retrial. To determine whether undue delay has occurred, one must have regard to nature of offence, number of accused and witnesses, workload of the court and the investigating agency, systemic delays. Inordinate delay may be taken as presumptive proof of prejudice particularly when accused is in custody so that prosecution does not become persecution. Court has to balance and weigh several relevant factors. Though it is neither advisable nor feasible to prescribe any mandatory outer time-limit and the court may only examine effect of delay in every individual case on the anvil of Article 21 of the Constitution, there is certainly a need for in-house mechanism to ensure that there is no undue delay in completing investigation. This obligation flows from the law laid down by this Court inter alia in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248] , Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. State of Bihar [Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 23] , Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak [Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1992) 1 SCC 225 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 93] and P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka [P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 830] ."
NC: 2024:KHC:39123 WP No. 21744 of 2024
Spl.C.C.No.933/2022 pending before the Hon'ble XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Court and Special Court for NDPS Cases, Bengaluru, within six months from the date of
receipt of the copy of this order, if not earlier.
disposed.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE
KG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 134
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an accused in custody for over three years in an NDPS case is entitled to a direction for expeditious disposal of the trial under Article 21.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dilawar v. State of Haryana and anotherRelied on
(2018) 16 SCC 521 · Who else cites this
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of IndiaReferred
(1978) 1 SCC 248 · Who else cites this
Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. State of BiharReferred
(1980) 1 SCC 81 · Who else cites this
Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. NayakReferred
(1992) 1 SCC 225 · Who else cites this
P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of KarnatakaReferred
(2002) 4 SCC 578 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 4 enactments
Nihal S
Inspector of Customs Headquarters Preventive Unit (HPU) Bangalore City Customs
State of Karnataka
Register General, High Court of Karnataka
Zonal Director, Narcotics Control Bureau, Bangalore Zonal Office
M.Nagaprasanna
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
