Jammu, Aug 6: The Court of the Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jammu, has taken serious note of the absence of a Public Prosecutor during court proceedings and warned the Director General (Prosecution) and Director Prosecution of possible contempt of court proceedings if an alternative arrangement is not made immediately.
The directions were passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jammu, while hearing a case titled UT of Jammu & Kashmir through Police Station ANTF Jammu versus S.K. Shafi & Another, arising out of FIR No. 05/2023 registered under Sections 8/20/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The order was passed on August 6, 2026.
The Court observed that although PW-10 ASI Gurdeep Singh had travelled from Srinagar to record his testimony, no Prosecutor was available to conduct the prosecution because the concerned Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) was on leave and no substitute had been deputed. The accused, the Court noted, have remained in judicial custody since June 23, 2023, making the delay even more serious.
During the hearing, the Court was informed that the absence of a replacement Prosecutor was allegedly due to an administrative issue concerning the powers of the Director General (Prosecution) following a communication issued by the Home Department. However, after examining the relevant government communication and the subsequent order issued by the Prosecution Department, the Court observed that the Home Department’s communication did not curtail the authority of the DG (Prosecution) to make temporary arrangements during the leave period of Prosecutors. The Court remarked that the interpretation appeared to be an unwarranted reaction to the Home Department’s communication.
Expressing strong concern, the Court stated that it was wholly unacceptable for a criminal court to become virtually non-functional merely because one Prosecutor had proceeded on leave. It emphasized that under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the State or Union Territory is required to be represented through a Prosecutor in criminal proceedings, and such statutory functions cannot be stalled due to administrative confusion.
The Court further observed that several undertrial prisoners remain incarcerated awaiting the progress of their trials, while other litigants approach the court seeking urgent legal relief. It also noted that 12 prosecution witnesses present in court on the day had to return without their evidence being recorded solely because of the absence of a Prosecutor. The Court stressed that judicial proceedings cannot be held hostage to internal administrative disputes or differences between the Prosecution Department and the Home Department regarding power-sharing.
Issuing strict directions, the Court ordered the Director General (Prosecution) and the Director Prosecution, who had sanctioned leave to the concerned Special Public Prosecutor, to ensure that an alternative Prosecutor is made available in court on the next date of hearing.
The Court categorically warned that failure to provide a Prosecutor would invite contempt of court proceedings against the concerned officials for impeding judicial proceedings and obstructing the daily functioning of the Court through acts of omission and commission.
The Court also directed that copies of the order be forwarded to the Director General (Prosecution), Director Prosecution and Deputy Director of Prosecution (DDP), Jammu, for immediate compliance. The matter has been listed for further proceedings on August 7, 2026.(KNC)
