Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 14805
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
V. G. Arun, J
Raghav Nair – Appellant
Versus
The State of Kerala – Respondent
Crl.MC 1121/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ajay Ben Jose, Harikrishnan S., Naveen A. Varkey, Anavadya Sanil Kumar
For the Respondents: M.C. Ashi
Prosecution for drug offenses necessitates chemical analysis of seized substances to validate claims of narcotic consumption.
Headnote:The court analyzed Section 27 of the NDPS Act regarding the punishment for consumption of narcotic drugs. The petitioner contested the accuracy of evidence, asserting that the seized beedi was not analyzed for ganja content. The court indicated that prosecution without confirming substance analysis is futile. The main issue was whether the absence of chemical analysis invalidates proceedings. The court ruled that proceedings must be quashed due to lack of forensic evidence.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishes grounds for prosecution and necessity of evidence. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. argues need for chemical analysis to support claims. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. clarifies that without evidence, continuation of prosecution is not viable. (Para 5) |
ORDER
Dated this the 4th day of March, 2025 Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.573 of 2024 registered at the Varappuzha Police Station alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 27 (b) of the NDPS Act , now pending as C.C No.242 of 2024 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, North Paravur.
2. The prosecution allegation is that, at around
12.15 a.m. on 23.08.2024, petitioner was found smoking a beedi and the smoke he exhaled had the smell of ganja. As it became evident that the petitioner was smoking ganja beedi, he was arrested and the beedi containing ganja seized. The petitioner is seeking to get the proceedings against him quashed, mainly on the ground that the beedi allegedly seized was not send for analysis and there is no evidence that he was smoking beedi filled with ganja.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there cannot be successful prosecution without first ascertaining whether the article seized contains ganja, by subjecting it to chemical analysis. In support of the contentions reliance in placed on the decision in Ibnu Shijil v. State of Kerala [ 2024 (5) KHC 476 ].
4. Learned Public Prosecutor submits on instructions that copy of the forwarding note or report of chemical analysis are not available in the records of the case.
5. Section 27 of the NDPS Act prescribes punishment for consumption of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance and as per Section 27 (b), if the narcotic drug or psychotropic substance consumed is other than those specified in Clause (a), the accused can be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with a fine which may extend to Rs.10,000/- or with both. Therefore, the crucial factor to be ascertained is whether the accused had consumed any narcotic or psychotropic substance. For such ascertainment, the seized article should be subjected to chemical analysis. In the case at hand, even though remaining part of the beedi smoked by the petitioner was seized, it was not sent for chemical analysis. As rightly held by this Court inIbnu Shijil (supra), in the absence of forensic examination or report from the expert regarding the nature of the contra band, continuation of prosecution will be a futile exercise.
For the aforementioned reasons, the Crl.M.C.
is allowed. Annexure 2 final report and all further proceedings in Crime No.576 of 2024 registered at the Varappuzha Police Station, pending as C.C. No.242 of 2024 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, North Paravur, is quashed.
