The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to address the low conviction rate in NDPS cases by improving investigation and prosecution, establishing special courts, and enhancing forensic science laboratories and personnel.

1. This public interest litigation has emerged while hearing Criminal Acquittal Appeal no. D-107/2010. In the order dated 14.02.2013, we have noted various features of NDPS cases and has observed in the aforesaid order as under:-

"Almost everyday acquittal appeals are filed by the State against many orders passed by the trial Courts and it is revealed that on account of non production of material witnesses' prosecution has failed. Another common feature discernible from the order passed by the trial Court is that the case property has not been produced. We asked the learned State counsel to disclose as to whether there is any mechanism for fixing the responsibility of Investigating Agency, Prosecuting Agency and other person associated with the prosecution of the challan before the trial court. There is no satisfactory reply. We have been informed by the learned State counsel that the rate of conviction particularly in NDPS cases is very low which may 10% to 12%. This raises serious question with regard to the method used for disposing of the case properly. For example in the present appeal 400 grams of Charas was claimed to have been recovered on the spot and then on visiting the house another 01Kg of Charas was recovered. We are not aware whether any effective steps have been taken for disposal of such contraband.

2. On account of the fear that such contraband might be recycled and illegally sold, we direct the Home Department to disclose.

i) The data will regard to challans in all NDPS cases which have been filed and the rate of success in prosecuting such cases:

ii) If the rate of success is low like 10% to 12% whether ant study has been undertaken to plug the loopholes in prosecution of such cases:

iii) Whether any mechanism for fixing the responsibility on the Investigating Agency or Prosecuting Agency is in place:

iv) Whether any steps have been taken to dispose of the case properly like contraband.

3. A comprehensive report answering the aforesaid questions and other related issues shall be filed by the Department of Home a week before the date fixed.

4. The registry is directed to register this as a PIL as Courts on its Own Motion v. (1) State of J&K through the Secretary Department of Home, Jammu and (2) the Director General of Police, J&K, Jammu.

5. Notice be issued for 14.03.2013.

6. A copy of this order be furnished to Mrs. Hakim, learned State counsel."

2. In the order dated 25.09.2013 we requested Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned Senior Counsel to assist the Court, who filed suggestions on 07.11.2013. It has come on record that the conviction rate in NDPS cases is as low as 10% to 12% and in a large number of cases the trial ends up in acquittal of the accused on account of tardy investigation which leads to the impression that it has either been done deliberately or there is lack of investigation skill. We have noticed in the order dated 19.12.2013 that the tools of investigation appears to be archaic and those who are at the helm of affairs are not well trained. The suggestions made by the learned Amicus were furnished to the learned State counsel who assured that a Committee would be constituted to study the NDPS case and to find out the reasons for tardy investigation of NDPS cases. Eventually the inspector General of Police, (Crime), J&K, was appointed as Chairman of the Committee constituted vide Order No. 1257 of 2013 dated 07.05.2013. After collecting dated from all the Districts concerning the NDPS cases and analyzing the same a report was filed by the Inspector General of Police, (Crime), in pursuance of the directions issued on 14.02.2013. It is revealed that in the year 2008, 138 cases were sent for trial and there were 1151 cases pending in respect of the previous years. In the year 2008, conviction was returned only in 7 and rest of 74 cases ended up in acquittal. The case of conviction in the year 2008 was 8.64%. Likewise in the year 2009 it was 6.20%. It would be appropriate to set out the tabulated