The right to a fair trial includes the opportunity to present relevant evidence, and procedural errors must not hinder the assessment of such evidence.

O R D E R

Dated this the 18^th day of February, 2025 Petitioner is the sole accused in S.C.(NDPS)

No.60 of 2020 on the files of the Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Thodupuzha. The case originated from Crime No.2 of 2020 registered at the Changanacherry Excise Circle Office, Kottayam for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. The gist of the prosecution allegation is that, at about 08:30 pm on 09.01.2020, based on secret information, the detecting officer and team searched the house of the accused and seized 1.5 Kgs of dry ganja.

2. The trial of the case progressed and after recording the Section 313 statement of the petitioner, when the case was posted for defence evidence, petitioner filed Crl.M.P No.16/2025, seeking production of the Mathrubhumi Daily dated 07.01.2020 by the District Correspondent and Bureau Chief, Mathrubhumi Daily, Kottayam. Trial court allowed that petition and when the witness appeared in Court with the newspaper, it was revealed that the news item meant to be marked was published in the Mathrubhumi Daily dated 11.01.2020 and not, 07.01.2020. Therefore, the witness was discharged and a fresh petition, Crl.M.P No.71/2025 filed, seeking production of the Mathrubhumi Daily dated 11.01.2020. That petition was also allowed by the trial court and when the witness appeared in court, it was noticed that instead of the District Correspondent and Bureau Chief, Kottayam, the District Correspondent and Bureau Chief, Idukki had appeared to give evidence. As a news item in the Kottayam Daily could be marked only through the Kottayam Bureau Chief, the witness present in court was discharged. Thereafter, petitioner once again filed Crl.M.P No.112/2025 seeking production of the newspaper. The trial court dismissed the petition on the premise that sufficient opportunity had been granted to the petitioner. Hence, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the news item regarding the seizure of the contraband and arrest of the petitioner, published in the Mathrubhumi daily dated 11.01.2020 is a vital piece of evidence and denial of opportunity to mark that document will deny petitioner’s right to fair trial. It is submitted that in Crl.M.P No.16/2025, due to an inadvertent mistake, date of the daily was shown as 07.01.2020 instead of 11.01.2020. In the second petition, Crl.M.P No.71/2025, the date was correctly shown and the District Correspondent and Bureau Chief, Kottayam was sought to be summoned for proving and marking that document. Unfortunately, the Kottayam Bureau Chief authorised the Idukki Bureau Chief to appear as witness. As the District Bureau Chief, Idukki was not competent to speak about the daily published in the Kottayam Edition, he had to be discharged. Thereafter, without wasting any time the petitioner filed Crl.M.P No.112 of 2025 seeking production of the newspaper by the witness. In spite of such timely action taken by the petitioner, the court below was under the mistaken impression that the attempt of the petitioner is to protract the trial.

4. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, no purpose is going to be served by marking the news item, the same being irrelevant. It is contended that in the light of the detailed reasoning given by the trial court, the impugned order warrants no interference.

5. As submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner, timely efforts are seen taken by the petitioner for getting the news item produced and marked. No doubt, initially there occurred a mistake with respect to date on which the news item was published. This had resulted in the witness being discharged. From the second petition onwards, the date and the witness were correctly stated. The petitioner cannot therefore be held responsible for the appearance of a w