The learned Judge on the basis of the material on record has
recorded his prima facie opinion about the commission of an
offence under Section 59 of N.D.P.S. Act by this applicant.
The learned Judge has not awarded any sentence to him. So
the right of the accused to meet the case which he would be
made to face has not in any way tinkered with or taken away.
18. It is to be noted that the approach of the learned
Judge being Special Judge under the N.D.P.S. Act is consistent
with the object and spirit of the enactment. It is to be noted
that while implementing the provisions of the enactment such
as N.D.P.S. Act all concerned at their respective place are
required to demonstrate equal seriousness. If such seriousness
is not demonstrated then it can frustrate the object and
intention of such enactment. It needs to be stated that in
order to ensure such seriousness by all concerned the stringent
provisions have been made. Section 59 of the N.D.P.S. Act is
one such stringent provision. It provides for penal
consequences in case of an act by anyone, which is not
consistent with the object and intention. It is submitted that
the opportunity was not given to him to explain the reasons
for delay in filing the charge sheet. In my view, this objection
can be taken care of by perusing the questions put to the
applicant and answers given by him. He has categorically
stated that investigation was complete on 13.10.2021. It is not
his case that after these questions by the Court and answers
given by him, he was in any manner prevented by the Court
from placing on record his explanation. The questions put to
him and answers given by him to those questions clearly
indicate that he was granted an opportunity to explain each
and every aspect. In fact the applicant has admitted that in all
respect the investigation was completed on 13.10.2021.
Applicant had an opportunity to place his detailed explanation
on record when he was called upon to file the say to the bail
application. The perusal of the say or reply to the bail
application would show that it was conspicuously silent
about the reasons for delay in filing the charge sheet. In fact
the say filed by the prosecutor on 27.01.2022 would reveal
that on phone, he had questioned the applicant about the
delay in filing the charge sheet. However, he did not answer
him. He finally went to meet him on 28.01.2022. It is,
therefore, seen that throughout the proceeding, he has not
placed the reasons for delay in filing the charge sheet on
record. It is, therefore, seen that the failure on his part is
serious wrong. Learned judge has found that this wrong is
fully covered within the dragnet of Section 59 (1) of the
NDPS Act.
25. In my view, therefore, this decision recognizes the
powers of the court to pass such an order. It is true that in this
case, the order of initiation of disciplinary action was passed.
The question whether the case warrants a disciplinary action
or penal action depends upon the facts and circumstances of
each and every case. In this case, the learned Judge found it
appropriate to order initiation of a penal action as provided
under Section 59 of N.D.P.S. Act. It needs to be stated that as
and when it is found by any Court at any stage of proceeding
that the actionable wrong within the meaning of Section 59 of
the N.D.P.S. Act has been committed then in that event it has
to be approached and dealt with firmly by initiating an
appropriate action. In this view of the matter, I do not see any
substance in the revision. The same is accordingly dismissed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.106 OF 2022
Ashish Devidas Morkhade Vs State of Maharashtra
CORAM : G. A. SANAP, J.
DATE:- 21/04/2023
Print Page