Judges : BHASKARAN NAMBIAR
STATE OF KERALA - Appellant
Versus
SHAJU - Respondent
Case No : Crl.R.C. No. 19 of 1984
Decided On : 12/02/1984
Advocates Appeared :
Public Prosecutor; For Petitioner M.C. Cheriyan; For Respondent
Abkari Act - Possession of Ganja - S.55(a) of the Abkari Act - S.293(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted for possession of Ganja based on a report from the Chemical Examiner's Laboratory. However, the Sessions Court acquitted the accused as it deemed the report inadmissible under S.293(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the report from the Joint Chemical Examiner should be admissible as evidence under S.293(4) and that the certificate of the expert should show both the reasons and the conclusions.
Issues: The admissibility of the report from the Joint Chemical Examiner and the sufficiency of the certificate in proving possession of Ganja.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the report from the Joint Chemical Examiner should be admissible as evidence and that it should show both the reasons and the conclusions.
Final Decision: The acquittal of the accused was confirmed and the revision was dismissed.
1. This is a matter taken in Calendar revision. The accused was convicted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Parur, under S.55 (a) of the Abkari Act for being in possession of 300 grams of Ganja, an intoxicating drug as defined under the Act. The substance recovered was sent from court to the Chemical Examiner's Laboratory for analysis. A report was submitted by the Joint Chemical Examiner who certified that it was Ganja. The Joint Chemical Examiner was not examined. The report was accepted by the trial court and the accused was convicted. In appeal, however, the Sessions Court held that the report was not acceptable and admissible in evidence as a Joint Chemical Examiner was not an authority coming within the ambit of S.293(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As there was thus no evidence that the substance seized was Ganja, the accused was acquitted.
2. The view taken by the Sessions Judge was doubted and hence suo. mote revision was taken. The accused was heard through his counsel and the Public Prosecutor appeared for the State.
3. S.293 of the Code states that any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Government scientific expert to whom the section applied, may be used as evidence in any proceeding under the Code. Sub-clause (4) which is relevant reads thus:
"(4) This section applies to the following Government scientific experts, namely:
(a) any Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government;
(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives; (c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau;
(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;
(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Assistant Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;
(f) The serologist to the Government."
This clause therefore advisedly uses 'Any Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner'. The word "any" is expressive. It indicates in the context, "one or another", or "one or more", "all or every" in the given category; it has no reference to any particular or definite individual, but to a positive but undetermined number in that category without restriction or limitation of choice. There can thus be no doubt that a Joint Chemical Examiner is a Chemical Examiner to whom S.293 of the Code applies whose certificate can be used as evidence in any enquiry under the Code as provided therein. The reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge to exclude the category of Joint Chemical Examiner from the ambit of S.293 does not therefore commend to me and can thus be no ground to acquit the accused.
4. A report of a Chemical Examiner, a specialist in the field, stating only his conclusions, without furnishing any data, showing the particulars on the basis of which that conclusion was reached, loses its essence and efficacy. He is not bound to show the details of his analysis, but bound to disclose the results of the analysis which led to his conclusion. The contents of the certificate of the expert or chemical examiner are subject to judicial scrutiny and the certificate or the report should itself show both the reasons and the conclusions. This is settled by a series of decisions of which I need mention only the decision of the Supreme Court in Dhian Singh v. Saharan-pur Municipality (AIR 1970 SC. 318). If data is not available, the Chemical Examiner may have to step in the witness box at the behest of the prosecution. In such cases, the prosecution cannot allow the expert to remain in the background, flourish his certificate against the accused and press for conviction.
5. In the present case, the Joint Chemical Examiner in Ext. P3 certificate merely says: 'The material in the packet was identified to be genuine ganja."
It is not known how he reached this conclusion. Under the Abkari Act, intoxicating drug means, the leaves, small stalks and flowering or fruiting tops of the Indian hemp plant (Connabis Sativa L), including all forms known as bhang, siddhi or ganja.
6. Encyclopaedia Britannica descri
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.