The Calcutta High Court recently ruled that the direct transmission of forensic reports to trial courts in NDPS (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances) cases does not cause any procedural infirmity. The division bench, comprising Justices Arijit Banerjee and Apurba Sinha Ray, emphasized the need to reduce delays in criminal trials and found no fault in bypassing the investigating agency when submitting chemical examination reports.
The court highlighted the importance of efficiency in criminal justice proceedings, noting that bureaucratic delays often prolong trials unnecessarily. The bench remarked:
"The action of the laboratory by sending the report directly to the court can be viewed as an effort on the part of the laboratory to reduce the 'systemic' delay which usually occurs in our courts. It is the duty of everyone involved in the matters of criminal investigation to reduce the systemic delay as far as practicable."
The court further stated that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any prejudice or harm caused due to this direct transmission of the forensic report.
Case Background
The case involved the petitioner, Delwar Sk. @ Delwar Seikh, who was arrested on February 21, 2024, for possession of commercial quantities of contraband substances. A charge sheet was filed on August 16, 2024, but without an accompanying Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report. The 180-day statutory period for filing a complete charge sheet expired on August 19, 2024. Subsequently, the forensic report was sent directly to the trial court on September 26, 2024, and the petitioner filed a statutory bail application on September 27, 2024.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Highlights the Lack of Opportunities for Trial Court Lawyers in Senior Designation System
The petitioner's counsel argued that the FSL report could not be directly sent to the trial court and should have been included in a supplementary charge sheet submitted by the investigating officer. The argument was based on Section 190(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which states that trial courts may take cognizance of an offence based on a police report. Additionally, Section 173(2)(i) of CrPC requires the investigating officer to submit the complete report to the magistrate once the investigation is concluded.
Since the investigating officer failed to submit a complete charge sheet within the statutory period, the petitioner claimed the right to statutory bail, citing judicial precedents.
The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail plea, asserting that the direct submission of the forensic report did not cause any harm or prejudice to the petitioner. Referring to Section 190(1)(c) of the CrPC, the prosecutor pointed out that a magistrate has the authority to take cognizance of an offence upon receiving information from any person, not just the police. This meant that there was no procedural illegality in the court receiving the forensic report directly from the laboratory.
The Calcutta High Court agreed with the prosecution, ruling that the direct submission of the FSL report to the trial court did not violate procedural norms or cause prejudice to the petitioner. The court reiterated the importance of avoiding delays in criminal trials and noted that in this case, time was saved by allowing the forensic laboratory to send the report directly to the court.
"The endeavour of all parties should be to reduce delay in criminal cases, which had been done by the chemical examiner in this case."
Based on these observations, the court dismissed the petitioner's plea for bail.
Case Title: Delwar Sk. @ Delwar Seikh Vs. The State of West Bengal
