A chemical analysis report under Section 329 of the BNSS can be admitted without the expert's presence unless necessary; failure to object precludes summoning the expert.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS THURSDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 30TH MAGHA, 1947 CRL.MC NO. 1465 OF 2026 CRIME NO.59/2018 OF EXCISE ENFORCEMENT AND ANTI NARCOTIC SPECIAL SQUAD, PALAKKAD, Palakkad AGAINST THE ORDER DATED IN CRMP 1/2026 IN SC NO.403 OF 2019 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-II, PALAKKAD PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

JIBIN JOHN AGED 39 YEARS S/O JOHN, MANJALI HOUSE, CHOORNIKARA DESOM, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683101 BY ADVS.

SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.V.VINAY SRI.M.S.ANEER SHRI.SARATH K.P.

SHRI.ANILKUMAR C.R.

SHRI.K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN SMT.DIPA V.

SHRI.AKASH CHERIAN THOMAS SHRI.AZAD SUNIL SHRI.MAHESWAR PADICKAL SMT.AKSHARA S.

SMT.NIVEDITA RAJEEV RESPONDENT/STATE:

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA (CRIME NO 59/2018 OF EXCISE ENFORCEMENT &

ANTI NARCOTIC SPECIAL SQUAD, PALAKKAD), PIN -

682031 PP SRI M P PRASANTH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

C.S.DIAS, J.

---------------------------------------

Crl.M.C. No. 1465 OF 2026 -----------------------------------------

Dated this the 19^th day of February, 2026

ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in S.C.No.403/2019 on the file of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge- II, Palakkad, (Trial Court), which has originated from Crime No.59/2018 of the Excise Enforcement and Anti- Narcotic Special Squad, Palakkad, alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 20 (b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , (‘NDPS Act’, in short).

2. The petitioner has stated in the criminal miscellaneous case that, the trial in the above case is in progress. PW1 was examined and the chemical examiner’s report was marked in evidence. Later, the petitioner filed Annexure -I application to recall PW1 for further cross-examination and to issue summons to the Assistant Chemical Examiner to the Government of Kerala to produce document mentioned in paragraph No.9 of the application. However, by Annexure -II order, the Trial Court has only partly allowed Annexure-I application, by recalling PW1 for the purpose of confronting him with the General Diary of the Excise Office, but the petitioner’s prayer to summon the Assistant Chemical Examiner has been disallowed. The partial rejection of the petitioner’s application is ex-facie erroneous and untenable.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argues that, Annexure -II order is erroneous for the reason that the petitioner has been denied the opportunity for a fair trial by not permitting him to examine the Assistant Chemical Examiner. In order to prove that the chemical analysis was not property conducted, the petitioner has sought for the production of the worksheet, analysis register and connected laboratory records. Unmindful of the said crucial aspect, the Trial Court has rejected the application for the sole reason that the petitioner’s application does not contain the specific reasons to summon the Assistant Chemical Examiner. The learned counsel relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Putai v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2025 KHC OnLine 6742], to substantiate his contention that a DNA report cannot be marked in evidence by an affidavit. Only evidence of formal nature can be accepted on affidavit. Substantive piece of evidence has to be proved through the author of the document. Hence, Annexure -II order may be quashed.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposes the Crl.M.C. He submits that, in view of Section 329 of the Bharatiya Nag