SUBRATA MONDAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application under section 397 read with section 482 of Cr.P. C. has been filed by the accused petitioner praying for quashing the criminal proceeding being case No. N-19/96 now pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 6th Court (Judge, N.D.P.S. Act), Barasat.

(2.) Learned advocate for the petitioner contended that in connection with the abovestated case the petitioner was brought under arrest before the learned Judge on 24.2.96 for his alleged possession of "Ganja" whose gross weight including the papers found was 38.800 miligram and excluding the paper packets the weight of the "Ganja" found in possession of the petitioner was 33.800 miligram. After statutory period of detention of 60 days he was enlarged on bail but as he did not appear after submission of chargesheet warrant was issued against him and he surrendered before the learned Judge on 16.6.03. On 17.9 03 charge under section 20(a) of N.D.P.S. Act (hereinafter called the "Act") was framed. Thereafter, several dates passed but the trial could not be started and the next date is 9.2.2004 for S.T.D., that means, setting trial date.

(3.) He contended that punishment under section 20(a) of the Act is six months or with fine or with both. As the trial has not been started even after expiry of six months detention of the accused petitioner, his further detention is illegal as he has already been in custody for more than the prescribed period of punishment. On 20.12.03 two petitions were filed; one praying for granting bail and the other for accepting his plea of guilt but, the learned Judge rejected both the petitions. At present the petitioner is in custody for about nine months, whereas the punishment prescribed under section 20(a) of the Act is imprisonment for six months or with fine or with both. The petitioner has already served out prescribed period of sentence and his further detention is illegal and is violative of his right under Article 21 of the Constitution. When the petitioner has already served out the prescribed period of sentence he should be released forthwith and the proceeding should be quashed. It would be an abuse of process of Court to continue the said criminal proceeding further. In support of his contention he placed a decision reported in 2003(4) Crimes 478.