Narcotics Case: Kerala High Court Acquits Man Over 'Prejudicial' Witness Evidence

Judicial Crackdown

Posted by AI on 2025-09-09 00:30:18 | Last Updated by AI on 2025-09-09 07:56:01

Share: Facebook | Twitter | Whatsapp | Linkedin Visits: 0

---

The Kerala High Court acquitted a man of narcotics charges after finding that the lower court accepted chief affidavits of witnesses as evidence in violation of criminal procedure. The judgment highlighted serious prejudice to the accused.

The Kerala High Court acquitted a man accused of possessing contraband after finding that the lower court accepted affidavits of material witnesses as evidence in violation of Section 276 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court found that the procedure caused serious prejudice to the accused and that the conviction could not be sustained.

The case involved offences under Sections 22(b) and 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The appellant challenged his conviction by the lower court. The public prosecutor argued that the evidence regarding the arrest and seizure of the contraband was reliable.

The High Court observed that the oral evidence was not recorded in accordance with the procedure set out in the Cr.P.C. As evidence was not taken down either by the judge or by his dictation in open court, the court could not consider it. Referring to other relevant provisions and previous Supreme Court decisions, including Ekene Godwin and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ashok v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the court further observed that the evidence should have been recorded in the presence of the accused or their lawyer.

The appellant also raised the contention that the detecting officer drew a sample of the contraband without following the procedure under Section 52A(ii) of the NDPS Act. This mandates the presence and supervision of the Magistrate during the drawing of samples, and the certification of the Magistrate after the entire collection process.

Relying on Simarnjit Singh v. State of Punjab, which reiterated the position in Union of India v. Mohanlal & Anr, (2016) 3 SCC 379, the Court felt that the prosecution case was not proved beyond doubt. Thus, it set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.

The case serves as an important reminder of the need to follow proper procedure in criminal cases to ensure a fair trial for the accused.

Go!