Financial transactions alone cannot be a ground to implicate a person as an accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , by the 3rd accused in Crime No.2641/2023 of the Ernakulam North Police Station, Ernakulam, registered against the accused (four in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 22 (c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (‘the Act’ for short), 1985. The petitioner was arrested on 03.11.2023.

2. The crux of the prosecution case is that: on 22.10.2023, at around 17.50 hours, 78.59 grams of methamphetamine was recovered from the first accused, from the wooden alamarah in the bedroom of the first accused. During the course of the investigation, it was revealed that the contraband was supplied to the first accused by the accused 2 to 4, and there were financial transactions between them. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

3. Heard; Sri. Eldho. K.C, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Seetha.S., the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations leveled against him. There is no material to substantiate the petitioner’s involvement in the case. The only vague allegation made in the final report is that there were certain financial transactions between the accused during the period from 15.04.2023 to 01.09.2023. This by itself cannot be a ground to implicate the petitioner in the crime. The petitioner is a student who is doing his graduation. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 03.11.2023, the investigation in the case is practically complete, and the final report has already been laid. Moreover, the Court of Session Ernakulam has enlarged the fourth accused on bail as per the order dated 27.02.2024 in Crl.M.C.No.581/2024. The petitioner claims parity with the fourth accused since the fourth accused is also implicated in the very same allegations. Hence, the application may be allowed.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. The Investigating Officer has filed a bail objection report, inter alia, stating that there are incriminating materials to substantiate the petitioner’s involvement in the crime. There were financial transactions between the petitioner and the first accused, which are born out by the bank records.

Moreover, since a commercial quantity of contraband is involved in the case, the rigour under Section 37 of the Act would apply. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing similar offences. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

6. The prosecution allegation against the accused is that the first accused was found in conscious possession of 78.59 grams of methamphetamine. He was arrested on the spot with the contraband article.

During the course of the investigation, it was unveiled that the accused 2 to 4 are also involved in the crime because there are financial transactions between the accused 2 to 4 and the first accused during the period from 15.04.2023 to 01.09.2023. If the prosecution case is to be accepted, certainly the contraband involved in the case is of a commercial quantity, and the rigour under Section 37 of the Act will apply.

7. It is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain V. State ( NCT of Delhi) [ 2023 KHC Online 6336 ] and this Court in Amal E & Anr V. State of Kerala [2023 Live Law (Ker) 329] that a financial transaction alone cannot be taken as a criteria to implicate a person as an accused for an offence under the Act.

8. Admittedly, the investigation in the case is complete, and the complaint has already been laid. A reading of Annexure A2 would show that the allegation against the petitioner is that he had financial transactions with the first accused, for which he has been implicated in the crime. Going by the law laid down in Mohd. Muslim and Amal E’s cases (supra), it is settled that financial transactions ar