Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 33455
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
HAMJITH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 2114 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: NAVANEETH.N.NATH, GAUTHAM KRISHNA E.J.K.S.STEJO ABHIRAMI S.
For the Respondents: NOUSHAD K. A.
Prosecution requires forensic analysis for contraband charges; evidence based solely on smell is insufficient.
Headnote:This judgment addresses the proceedings against the petitioner for alleged offences under Section 27(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The court found that the complainant's evidence, based solely on olfactory identification, lacked forensic support, thus leading to a dismissal of the charges. The court noted prior judgments emphasizing the need for forensic examination to substantiate prosecution claims of contraband identification. Consequently, the proceedings were quashed based on insufficient legal foundation.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. legal proceedings initiated against the accused. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. lack of forensic analysis undermines the prosecution's case. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. proceedings against the petitioner quashed. (Para 6) |
ORDER
Petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.435/2024 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram, arising out of Crime No.208/2024 of Malappuram Police Station. Prosecution alleged that on 25.01.2024, petitioner was found smoking a beedi filled with Ganja and thereby committed the offences punishable under Section 27 (b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [for short, the Act’]. Petitioner challenges the proceedings initiated against him.
2. I have heard Sri.Navaneeth N.Nath, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.Noushad K.A., the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. Concededly the beedi allegedly containing ganja has not been subjected to any forensic analysis.
4. This Court has in Ibnu Shijil v. State of Kerala 2024 (5) KHC 476 and in Anurag Shaji v. State of Kerala 2023 KHC Online 9406 ; observed that olfactory abilities of a person can only trigger suspicion and identifying the nature of the contraband on the basis of smell cannot be a piece of acceptable evidence to justify a criminal prosecution. It was also observed that, in the absence of any forensic examination or a report from the expert regarding the nature of the contraband, the prosecution cannot be permitted to continue.
5. An identical situation arises in this case as the beedi that was allegedly being smoked by the petitioner was not subjected to any forensic examination. In the absence of any forensic examination of the beedi, the prosecution against the petitioner for the offence under Section 27 (b) of the Act, is without any legal basis.
6. Hence, the proceedings against the petitioner in S.T.No.435/2024 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram, is hereby quashed.
