Delhi Police Cleared of Blame as Forensic Science Lab Independence delays Beyond Their Control. – Delhi HC
Title: STATE (NCT OF DELHI) versus SHADAB
+ CRL.M.C. 6288/2023 & CRL.M.A. 23536/2023 (stay)
Decided on: 22nd December, 2023
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
Facts of the case:
The petitioner has filed a petition seeking the quashing and setting aside of orders dated July 31, 2023, and August 2, 2023, issued by the Special Judge (NDPS), Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), District North East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. These orders pertain to a case titled State v. Shadab, arising from FIR No. 26/2023. The petitioner, who is the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) (Crime), challenges the observations made in the orders and the bailable warrants issued against him.
The background of the case involves the registration of FIR No. 26/2023 under Sections 21/25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS), and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), at Police Station Crime Branch. The accused persons were sent to judicial custody on February 7, 2023, and the case saw multiple extensions. The exhibit samples were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), and the Chargesheet was filed on July 31, 2023.
The first order, dated July 31, 2023, directed the Investigating Officer (IO), Station House Officer (SHO), Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), and DCP (Crime) to appear before the Sessions Judge. The judge expressed concern that the Chargesheet was filed without an FSL Report and highlighted non-compliance with standing orders. The court scheduled the next hearing for August 2, 2023.
On August 2, 2023, the DCP (Crime) requested an exemption from personal appearance, citing official duties. However, the request was rejected for lack of demonstrated official exigencies, and bailable warrants of Rs. 5,000/- were issued against the DCP (Crime), to be executed through the Commissioner of Police.
The petitioner challenges these orders, emphasizing issues of non-compliance with standing orders and the alleged failure of police officials to expedite the FSL report. The petition seeks relief by quashing the mentioned orders and addressing the observations made against the petitioner.
Laws Involved:
Sections 21/25 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985-
- Punishment for contravention in relation to manufactured drugs and preparations.
- Punishment for contravention in relation to psychotropic substances.
- Punishment for illegal import in to India, export from India or transhipment of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
- Punishment for external dealings in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances in contravention of section 12.
- Punishment for allowing premises, etc., to be used for commission of an offence.
Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860-
Section 201 punishes any person, who knowing that any offence has been committed, destroys the evidence of that offence or gives false information in order to screen the offender from legal punishment.
Issue framed by the court:
Whether Impugned orders dated 31st July, 2023 and 2nd August, 2023 were unwarranted and beyond the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court?
Courts Judgement and Analysis:
The court held that the issuance of bailable warrants against the petitioner, a DCP (Crime), on August 2, 2023, was without legal basis or authority. The court referred to a previous case, Ajit Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), where a Coordinate Bench emphasized the need for judicial restraint and refraining from denigrating remarks against police officials.
The court expressed concern about the potential devastating effect such criticism could have on the professional career of a police officer. It highlighted the practical difficulties faced by police officers in the discharge of their duties, emphasizing that judicial strictures should be passed with utmost circumspection.
The court also referred to a previous case, Sanjay Kumar Sain, where adverse remarks against police officials were expunged. It clarified that the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) is an independent government agency not under the control of Delhi Police, and therefore, delays in obtaining reports from FSL should not be attributed to the police.
The court criticized the trial court for overlooking the fact that the FSL director was not under the control of the Commissioner of Police or the petitioner. It noted that there was no material or occasion for the trial court to hold the petitioner guilty for the delay in FSL reports without proper evidence.
Furthermore, the court pointed out that similar orders were being passed by the same judge despite a detailed judgment expunging adverse remarks against senior police officials. This was deemed a breach of judicial discipline. The court emphasized that FSL is an independent body, not under the control of Delhi Police, and criticized the routine issuance of bailable warrants without proper consideration of exemption applications.
In conclusion, the court found the issuance of bailable warrants to be completely untenable, resulting in a lowering of the image and reputation of high-ranking police officials. The court stressed the need for judges to exercise caution in their orders and consider the practical challenges faced by police officers in their duties.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aditi