1. Appeal against conviction and sentence for illegal possession of contraband, challenging procedural irregularities during the trial process under the relevant legislative framework. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 68180
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. Badharudeen, J
SHINOY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.A 1259/2015
Important Points
Procedural irregularities in a criminal trial, such as the improper use of chief affidavits, do not warrant setting aside a conviction if the error was corrected and no actual prejudice was caused to the accused, particularly when no contradictions were elicited during cross-examination.
Subject
Criminal Law - NDPS Act
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 20(b)(ii)(B) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 313 and 374(2) - Recovery of 5 kgs of ganja - Procedural irregularity in recording evidence - Initial recording of evidence via chief affidavits is illegal in criminal trials - Corrective measure of subsequent chief examination and cross-examination removes the illegality if no prejudice is caused - Non-recall of the investigating officer to prove contradictions is not fatal if no such contradictions were elicited during the cross-examination of material witnesses - Trial cannot be held illegal solely on procedural grounds if no actual prejudice is caused to the accused. (Paras 9, 16, 17)
(B) Sentence - Modification of sentence permissible based on the intermediate quantity of contraband. (Para 19)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for the possession of 5 kgs of ganja. During the trial, the court initially recorded the evidence of material witnesses through chief affidavits, a procedure later corrected by direct examination. The appellant challenged the conviction, citing the procedural anomaly and the failure to recall the investigating officer to prove contradictions arising from the corrected evidence, as well as a claimed lack of examination under Section 313 CrPC.
Findings of Court:
The court held that while the initial use of affidavits was illegal, the trial court rectified the error by re-examining the witnesses. Since no contradictions were brought out during cross-examination, the failure to recall the investigating officer did not cause prejudice to the accused. The possession of the contraband was established by the testimonies of the officers and supporting witnesses.
Issues:Whether the procedural irregularities in witness examination caused prejudice to the accused and whether the resulting conviction under the NDPS Act was sustainable.
Ratio Decidendi:Procedural lapses in a trial do not justify upsetting a verdict unless they result in actual prejudice to the accused's right to a fair trial. If an illegal procedure is corrected and the evidence produced remains consistent, the lack of re-examination of the investigating officer does not vitiate the trial.
Result:Appeal allowed in part. Conviction confirmed; sentence modified to four years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000/-.
(B) Sentence - Modification of sentence permissible based on the intermediate quantity of contraband. (Para 19)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for the possession of 5 kgs of ganja. During the trial, the court initially recorded the evidence of material witnesses through chief affidavits, a procedure later corrected by direct examination. The appellant challenged the conviction, citing the procedural anomaly and the failure to recall the investigating officer to prove contradictions arising from the corrected evidence, as well as a claimed lack of examination under Section 313 CrPC.
Findings of Court:
The court held that while the initial use of affidavits was illegal, the trial court rectified the error by re-examining the witnesses. Since no contradictions were brought out during cross-examination, the failure to recall the investigating officer did not cause prejudice to the accused. The possession of the contraband was established by the testimonies of the officers and supporting witnesses.
Issues:Whether the procedural irregularities in witness examination caused prejudice to the accused and whether the resulting conviction under the NDPS Act was sustainable.
Ratio Decidendi:Procedural lapses in a trial do not justify upsetting a verdict unless they result in actual prejudice to the accused's right to a fair trial. If an illegal procedure is corrected and the evidence produced remains consistent, the lack of re-examination of the investigating officer does not vitiate the trial.
Result:Appeal allowed in part. Conviction confirmed; sentence modified to four years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000/-.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Manu Tom, Balamurali K.P.
For the Respondents: M A Shihab
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Manu Tom, Balamurali K.P.
For the Respondents: M A Shihab
Table of Contents
2. The appellant alleges procedural irregularity in witness examination causing prejudice, while the prosecutor asserts that procedural corrections cured any initial defects without prejudicing the defendant. (Para 6 , 7 )
3. The court observed that while initial evidence recording via affidavits was illegal, subsequent de novo recording and cross-examination effectively rectified the procedural defect without prejudice to the accused. (Para 9 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
4. A trial is not vitiated by procedural irregularity if the trial court subsequently adopts correct procedures and provides the accused sufficient opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, preventing actual prejudice. (Para 9 , 17 )
5. Appeal allowed in part; conviction for possession of contraband is confirmed, but sentence is modified to rigorous imprisonment and reduced fine amount. (Para 19 )
6. Is trial evidence recorded via affidavits in criminal cases legally permissible?
No, recording evidence in criminal cases through chief affidavits in lieu of examination-in-chief is not permitted under the Code of Criminal Procedure or equivalent statutes, rendering such a procedure illegal. (Para 9 )
7. Does a procedural error in recording witness evidence automatically render a trial invalid?
Not necessarily. If the court realizes the error and subsequently conducts a proper examination-in-chief and permits reasonable cross-examination of the witnesses, the trial is not vitiated provided no prejudice was caused to the accused. (Para 9 , 17 )
8. Is it mandatory to recall the investigating officer after correcting the examination procedure for material witnesses?
No. The investigating officer needs to be recalled specifically to prove contradictions brought out during cross-examination. If no such contradictions were elicited during the corrected examination, non-recall does not constitute prejudice. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 )
JUDGMENT
The sole accused in S.C. No.17/2012 on the files of the Court of the Special Judge (NDPS Act Cases), Vatakara, has filed this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as “the CrPC”), challenging the conviction and sentence imposed upon him by the learned Special Judge, as per the judgment dated 29.10.2015.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records of the Special Court and the verdict impugned.
3. In this case, crime was registered alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act) by the appellant/accused, when PW1, the Excise Inspector, Tirur Excise range, while on patrol duty, found that the appellant/accused herein possessed 5 kgs of ganja in violation of the provisions contained in the NDPS Act.
4. Upon receipt of the final report, the learned Special Judge framed charge for the said offence and proceeded with the trial. During the trial, PWs.1 to 8 were examined, Exts.P1 to P16 and MOs.1 to 2 were marked on the side of the prosecution. No defence evidence was adduced.
5. Thereafter, on appreciation of evidence, the learned Special Judge found that the appellant/accused had committed offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. Accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced as under:
“1) The accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) in default, rigorous imprisonment for one year.
2) Set off u/s 428 Cr. P.C is allowed.”
6. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused argued that, in this case, there is serious procedural irregularity in conducting the trial, which prejudiced the right of the accused in getting fair trial. It is pointed out that, initially, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 was taken by filing their chief affidavits on 09.01.2014, and based on the chief affidavits, the appellant was given an opportunity to cross-examine them. Thereafter, PWs.3 to 8 were examined in Court by the learned Special Judge without adopting the procedure of filing proof affidavits and completed prosecution evidence. It is submitted that, even though the procedure of recording the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 by filing chief affidavits was found to be erroneous, and on this basis PW1 was examined in chief on 03.06.2015, ignoring the chief affidavit, and on 30.07.2015, PW2 also examined in chief and both of them were cross-examined by the counsel for the appellant, after the examination of PWs.1 and 2 on 03.06.2015 and 30.07.2015, respectively, the investigating officer, who was examined as PW8, was not recalled for the purpose of giving the accused an opportunity to put questions to him regarding the evidence tendered by PWs.1 and 2. In such circumstances, the verdict impugned would require interference.
7. Whereas, it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that, even though the Special Court followed an incorrect procedure for the examination of PWs.1 and 2 by filing chief affidavits, the same was rectified by subsequently examining them in chief and giving the appellant/accused an opportunity to cross-examine them. According to him, recording the evidence of material witnesses in a criminal case by filing proof affidavits is a procedure not known to law. The said procedure was given up by the Special Court itself by examining PWs.1 and 2 directly. It is pointed out that, when PWs. 1 and 2 were examined, subsequently, they were cross-examined by the appellant/accused, and during cross-examination, no contradictions were brought out in any form warranting the examination of the investigating officer to get the same proved. Therefore, no prejudice was caused to the accused/appellant. Accordingly, the learned Public Prosecutor pressed for confirmation of the verdict impugned.
8. Adverting to the rival co
