But in the present matter, the accused Mike Camargo is charged with the sale and possession of

Cocaine of small quantity and therefore charged under Section 21(a) of Narcotics and
Psychotropic Drugs Act, 1985. Therefore, he has been charged for offences which punished for
the imprisonment for the term which may extend to [one year], or with fine which may extend to
ten thousand rupees, or with both. In the case of Rajeev v. State of Kerela1, it was held that the
offences specifically not triable by the special court shall be triable before the court of the
Judicial Magistrate First Class.

Therefore the Lower Court was having the jurisdiction to decide on the present matter and
section 239 bestowed the Magistrate the power to discharge.

Issue 1.2 That Lower Court was justified in dropping the charges against the accused.

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the accused was suffering from by the
time he was indicted, Camargo was in an advanced stage of AIDS and related complicating
illnesses. The virus had invaded his brain and his stomach, and peripheral nerve damage caused
him pain and suffering to the extent that doctors ordered him to limit his physical exercise to
sitting in a chair for one hour a day. His doctors’ prognosis was death within three to four
months. The lower court dropped the charges and was justified in doing so because [A] Article
21 of the Constitution [B] Humanitarian Ground [C] The Magistrate considers no sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused.

ISSUE 1.2.1 ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION

Article 21 is a declaration of deep faith and belief in human rights. Right to life is one of the
basic human right and not even the state has the authority to violate that right. Article 21 is the
repository of all human rights, essential for a person or a citizen.2 The Constitution incorporates
provisions guaranteeing everyone’s right to the highest attainable standard of physical and
mental health. 3Article 21 starts with “No person”, which means article 21 includes every person
and does not differentiate between accused, victiom, convicted, etc. The Supreme Court equated

1
Cri.M.C No. 75 of 2015.
2
D.D Basu, “Commentary on the Constitution of India”, Vol.3 Edn 8th 3103 (2008).
3
K. Mathiharan, “HEALTH AND LAW - The fundamental right to health care”, Vol.11 No.4 (2003).