A Special NDPS Court in Jammu has issued a stern warning to senior prosecution authorities, stating that failure to ensure the presence of a Public Prosecutor could result in contempt proceedings. The warning came after court proceedings were disrupted when no prosecutor appeared before the court due to the sanctioned leave of the Special Public Prosecutor and the absence of any substitute arrangement.
The matter arose in UT of J&K v. S.K. Shafi & Anr., a prosecution under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The court noted that despite the presence of the accused, defence counsel, and a prosecution witness who had travelled from Srinagar to testify, the proceedings could not move forward because no prosecutor was available to conduct the case.
Special Judge (NDPS Cases) Parvez Iqbal observed that criminal courts cannot be rendered non-functional merely because of administrative confusion within the Prosecution Department. The court emphasized that the State or Union Territory is a party to every criminal prosecution and must be represented by a prosecutor as mandated under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
During the hearing, court officials were informed that the Special Public Prosecutor had proceeded on sanctioned leave for four days. However, no alternate prosecutor had been deputed. The explanation offered was that the Director General (Prosecution) allegedly lacked authority to assign another prosecutor due to a Home Department communication concerning prosecutorial appointments and postings.
Upon examining the relevant communications, the court rejected this interpretation. It observed that the Home Department's correspondence did not restrict the Director General (Prosecution) from making temporary arrangements during the leave period of prosecutors. The court described the interpretation adopted by the prosecution authorities as an "out-of-context" reading and termed the resulting administrative response a "knee-jerk reaction."
The court expressed concern over the impact of the lapse on the justice delivery system. It noted that approximately 80 criminal matters were listed before the court and that 12 prosecution witnesses had appeared, only to return without their evidence being recorded. The court further highlighted that accused persons had remained incarcerated while awaiting progress in their trials.
Observing that judicial proceedings cannot be held hostage to administrative disputes or uncertainty regarding departmental powers, the court directed the Director General (Prosecution) and Director (Prosecution) to immediately ensure the availability of an alternate prosecutor.
The court warned that failure to comply with its directions would invite contempt proceedings against the concerned officials for impeding judicial proceedings and obstructing the daily functioning of the court. Copies of the order were directed to be served upon the relevant prosecution authorities for urgent compliance.
The order underscores the judiciary's expectation that prosecutorial and administrative authorities ensure uninterrupted functioning of criminal courts and protect the rights of accused persons, witnesses, and litigants awaiting justice.