A mere delay in the trial, without considering the cause of delay and who is at fault, is not sufficient to invoke the protection of Article 21 of the Constitution.

( 1 ) "the horizons of Article 21 are ever widening and the final word on its conspectus shall never have been said. So long as life lasts, so long shall it be the duty and endeavour of this Court to give to the provisions of our Constitution a meaning which will prevent human suffering and degradation", was held by Y. V. Chandrachud. The Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India presiding over a 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Sher Singh v. State of Punjab held on AIR 1983 SC 465.

( 2 ) KEEPING in mind, the aforesaid hallowed observations this Court proceed to evaluate the grievance of the petitioner, who feels that in his case the said Fundamental Right has stood in breach.

( 3 ) THIS Court is now entrusted with to sort out the agony of the petitioner, who feels that his valuable right under Article 21 of the Constitution has been breached in the proceedings of N-10 of 2000 pending before the learned Special Court (under the N. D. P. S. Act), Barasat as he has been in custody for a period more than what is permissible under the law.

( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing in support of the application has submitted that since the amount involved in the present case is only 3. 500 grams the case of the petitioner falls squarely within the definition of small quantity being punishable with a maximum imprisonment for six months in view of the amended provisions of Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act); but the petftioner has served out more than the maximum limit prescribed under the said provision. She has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 7. 8. 04 and was also earlier in custody for a substantial period, which covered the maximum amount of sentence impossible under Section 21 (a) of the said Act. According to her the proceeding should be quashed and the petitioner should be released.

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the impugned order dated 25. 11. 2004 passed by the learned Special Court, refusing to discharge the petitioner from the case was not in accordance with law in view of the decisions of Subrata Mondal v. State of West Bengal, 2004 c Cr LR (Cal) 287 and In Re : Golam Nabi, 2004 C Cr LR (Cal) 1027. She showed from the said two decisions-Subrata Mondal (supra) and In Re : golam Nabi (supra) that this Court on earlier occasions on similar cases which involved "small quantity" had quashed the proceeding on the ground that the accused persons have served out more than the period of detention.

( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner referred to the Amendment provision of Section 41 of the said Act and submitted that the New Amendment came into effect from the year 2001 making the offence in connection with a small quantity of the contraband articles to be punishable by imprisonment for a maximum period of six months. Whereas the incident, in connection with the present case, although took place on 5. 3. 2000 in view of Section 41 of the said Act the case was pending before the Court and would be accordingly governed by the Amendment.

( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the aforesaid position prayed for quashing the impugned proceeding.

( 8 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the contention made on behalf of the petitioners and submitted that as charge nas already been framed and witnesses have been examined the Trial should be allowed to be completed and no interference is warranted at this stage. He further submitted that the petitioner was found selling the articles and the same were not for his personal consumption and it is evident from the materials that the petitioner had purias and was selling the said articles.

( 9 ) AS a part of his submission learned Counsel for the State referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Karim Hossain Sohra Sindhi v. State of Gujarat. 2004 SCC (Cr) 1059. Placing reliance on the said decision lea