SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 53767

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
Anurag Shaji v. State of Kerala
Criminal Miscellaneous Case | ST No. 3543/2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Counsel for the petitioner
For the Respondents: Public Prosecutor

Prosecution for drug-related offenses requires substantive evidence, including chemical analysis; lack thereof constitutes an abuse of court process.

Headnote:This case arises under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, where the petitioner was accused of consuming a narcotic substance. The petitioner contended that without a chemical analysis report, prosecution is an abuse of court process. The court found no substantive evidence to support the prosecution, echoing prior rulings on similar matters. The court concluded that the prosecution against the petitioner was an abuse and quashed all proceedings in the associated case.

Table of Content
1. prosecution involves allegations of narcotics. (Para 1 , 2)
2. requirement of chemical analysis for conviction. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court quashed prosecution due to lack of evidence. (Para 5)

1. Petitioner is the accused in ST No. 3543/2023 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vaikom, registered as Crime No. 846/2023 of Velloor Police Station registered alleging offences under S.27(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

2. The prosecution case is that the accused was found on the way side smoking ganja beedi by the police party headed by the informant on 11.08.2023, while they were passing through Aamikkattu Padi Portion in Ambalappady - Mannukunnu Road. On seeing the police party, the petitioner threw away the beedi and tried to escape from the scene. The police party stopped him and conducted a search in which the informant has reached a satisfaction to the effect that the petitioner was smoking ganja beedi. Consequently, the FIR registered. Annexure A is the final report and Annexure B is the seizure mahazar. According to the petitioner, even if the entire allegations are accepted, the offence is not made out against the petitioner.

3. Heard counsel for the petitioner and Public Prosecutor

4. The short point raised by the petitioner is that without a chemical analysis report, there is no chance for a successful prosecution and hence the continuation of the prosecution case against the petitioner is an abuse of process of court. This Court directed the public Prosecutor to get instructions whether any expert opinion is obtained to show that the beedi used by the petitioner is a narcotic substance. The Public Prosecutor after getting instructions submitted that no analysis report is obtained in this case.

5. In the light of the above submission of the Public Prosecutor that there is no analysis report, the continuation of the prosecution against the petitioner is an abuse of process of court. No materials has been collected by the Investigating Officer to substantiate that the petitioner was consuming a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance. The same view was taken by this Court in the order dated 27.06.2023 in Crl. M.C No. 3609/2023. In the light of the same this Criminal Miscellaneous Case can be allowed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top