The Indian Supreme Court has modified the Calcutta High Court order that imposed a fine of ₹1 lakh on central government officials for filing a belated appeal in a Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) case. While the Court did not completely set aside the High Court order, it reduced the fine and clarified who would have to bear it.
Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice K. Vinod Chandran's bench was hearing the Centre's challenge to the Calcutta High Court's June 16, 2025 order. The high court had imposed a fine of ₹1 lakh on the Centre and directed that the amount be recovered from the officials responsible for filing the appeal.
However, the Supreme Court modified the order, saying:
“This cost shall be deposited by the Central Government and shall not be recovered from the officials involved.”
Read also: Why did the Supreme Court Suspend Kiran Kumar's Sentence in Vismaya Dowry Death Case?
Further, the court reduced the cost from ₹1 lakh to ₹50,000, noting that though there was a delay in filing the appeal, it was excessive to impose such a high fine on individual officials.
The case arose out of a government appeal filed against acquittal under Section 25A/29 of the NDPS Act. The special court had acquitted the accused on June 7, 2024. However, the Centre filed the appeal only on March 17, 2025 - more than nine months later.
During the initial hearing, the High Court found that the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was not properly explained. Further, the appeal was filed without the mandatory application under Section 387(3) of the CrPC (now Section 419(3) of the BNSS). The Court initially permitted the Union to rectify the omission, and the necessary application and a detailed report were subsequently submitted on June 13, 2025.
Despite the rectifications, the High Court allowed the appeal to be withdrawn and imposed a fine of ₹1 lakh on the concerned officials. Challenging this, the Union argued before the Supreme Court that the fine was unreasonable and excessive.
Appearing for the Union, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SD Sanjay argued that the delay was procedural and inadvertent. However, the bench was not convinced about the lack of timely action.
Justice Sundresh said:
"You filed after a considerable time… it must be either the fault of your lawyer, or your officer."
Read also: Appeal to Dismiss "Kahaani 2" Script Case in SC, Notice Issued on Sujoy Ghosh's Plea
Justice Chandran said:
"The court was asking you to do so, and you don't… should we say the concerned counsel should deposit the cost?"
When ASG Sanjay requested for directions to stop such repeated delays, Justice Chandran remarked:
"Please understand your position as a lawyer. If they don't come to you, you should know what to do. You don't ask the Supreme Court to issue directions to validate your orders."
Eventually, the bench directed the Central government to deposit ₹50,000, which would go to the Legal Services Authority, maintaining that the cost would serve a public purpose.
The petition was filed through AoR Arvind Kumar Sharma.
Case Title: UNION OF INDIA Versus MANASH DEY MUNSHI, SLP(Crl) No. 9500/2025
