Re-Trial Not Justified For Prosecutorial Lapses In Proving Electronic Evidence Or Examining Experts Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court - 2025-09-15

Supreme Court Sets Aside Re-Trial Order in NDPS Case, Cites Misconception of Law on Electronic Evidence

New Delhi: In a significant ruling on criminal procedure, the Supreme Court has set aside a Bombay High Court order that directed a re-trial in a narcotics case due to perceived procedural errors in handling electronic evidence and expert testimony. The bench, led by Justice Manoj Misra , held that a re-trial cannot be ordered merely to allow the prosecution to rectify infirmities and should be reserved for exceptional circumstances.

The Court restored the criminal appeals of the accused to the High Court for a fresh decision on merits, clarifying the legal position on the admissibility of electronic records and expert reports.

---

Case Background: From Conviction to a Contentious Re-Trial

The case originates from a 2020 raid where the appellant, Kailas, and a co-accused, Raju Motiram Solanke, were arrested for possessing 39 kilograms of Ganja, an offense under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The Trial Court in Akola convicted them, relying on witness testimonies and a video recording of the entire raid, for which the photographer had provided a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT .

On appeal, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court set aside the conviction. However, instead of an acquittal, it ordered a complete re-trial. The High Court reasoned that there were "imminent flaws" and "procedural errors" that caused a "miscarriage of justice." These flaws included: 1. Improper Handling of Video Evidence: The video CD was not played during the testimony of each witness to have them narrate its contents on oath. 2. Non-Examination of Chemical Analyst: The prosecution failed to examine the Chemical Analyst (CA) as a witness to prove the lab report. 3. Non-Production of Samples: Remnant and representative samples of the seized contraband were not produced in court.

Aggrieved by the direction for a re-trial, which also entailed his remand to judicial custody, Kailas appealed to the Supreme Court.

---

Key Arguments Before the Supreme Court

• Appellant's Counsel: Argued that a re-trial is an exceptional measure and cannot be used to help the prosecution fill gaps in its evidence. Citing landmark cases like Ukha Kolhe v. State of Maharashtra , they contended that if the High Court found the evidence insufficient, the only appropriate course was an acquittal.

• Respondent-State's Counsel: Countered that the High Court had erred in its legal reasoning. They submitted that the video was admissible under Section 65B of the EVIDENCE ACT , the Chemical Examiner's report was admissible under Section 293 of the CrPC without oral testimony, and any procedural issues could have been addressed by the High Court using its power to take additional evidence under Section 391 CrPC.

---

Supreme Court's Analysis: Clarifying the Law on Evidence and Re-Trials

The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed the High Court's reasons for ordering the re-trial and found them legally untenable.

On Admissibility of Video Evidence

The bench termed the High Court's reasoning that the video was not properly admitted as "strange and unacceptable." It held that once a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the EVIDENCE ACT is provided, the electronic record (the CD) becomes an admissible piece of evidence.

> "The CD is an electronic record and once the requirement of Section 65B is fulfilled it becomes an admissible piece of evidence, like a document... it is not the requirement of law that the contents of the video would become admissible only if it is reduced to a transcript in the words of a witness..."

The Court noted that if the appellate court had difficulty understanding the video, it could have sought explanations or taken additional evidence under Section 391 CrPC, but ordering a re-trial for this reason was "totally misconceived and baseless."

On Examination of Chemical Analyst

The Supreme Court clarified that under Section 293 CrPC, a report from a government scientific expert, such as a Chemical Examiner, is admissible in evidence without the expert being examined as a witness.

> "There is no such requirement of law that Chemical Examiner would have to be called in each NDPS case to prove the report when it is otherwise admissible under sub-section (1) of Section 293 of CrPC."

On Non-Production of Seized Contraband

While acknowledging precedents that emphasize the importance of producing seized contraband, the Court highlighted that its non-production is not singularly fatal if the seizure is otherwise proven through reliable evidence, such as documentation under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act (inventory certified by a Magistrate). Such procedural defects, the Court concluded, are not grounds for a re-trial.

---

Final Verdict: Re-Trial Quashed, Appeal Restored

The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's decision to order a re-trial was not justified and did not meet the stringent criteria laid down in established precedents. An order for re-trial, the Court reiterated, "wipes out from the record the earlier proceeding" and should not be countenanced merely to enable the prosecution to rectify its own infirmities.

The bench allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned High Court order. It restored the criminal appeals of both the appellant and the co-accused to the file of the High Court for a fresh decision on merits, directing an expedited hearing. The appellant was allowed to continue on bail granted by the Supreme Court.