In a crucial legal scrutiny, the Supreme Court is poised to assess the validity of citing a post-acquittal alteration in law as grounds for condoning delays and challenging acquittal findings. The distinguished bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol recently initiated proceedings on November 6, issuing a notice in response to a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging an interim order from the Kerala High Court.
The focal point of the SLP lies in an appeal against the acquittal of an individual charged under the NDPS (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985). The Kerala High Court not only admitted the appeal but also condoned a substantial delay of 1184 days in filing the appeal.
Significantly, the acquittal was rooted in the precedent set by the Mohanlal v. State of Punjab case. However, the Prosecution contended that the Mohanlal decision had been overruled by the Mukesh Singh v. State Narcotic Branch, Delhi ruling. Consequently, the High Court, recognizing the shift in legal stance and deeming the appeal meritorious, decided to hear the case on its merits, while concurrently excusing the delay.
Citing the impugned order, the accused lodged an appeal before the Supreme Court, arguing that a subsequent change in law should not warrant the condonation of delay or the disturbance of acquittal findings.
“The learned Counsel submits that a subsequent change of law cannot be a ground for condonation of delay or to disturb the acquittal finding. Yet, the High Court, in its order dated 23.06.2023, not only condoned the substantial delay but also opted to consider the Prosecution’s appeal on its merits,” asserted the Counsel for the petitioner/accused.
Responding to these contentions, the Supreme Court issued a notice returnable in six weeks, simultaneously imposing a stay on further proceedings.
The Mukesh Singh Precedent
It is noteworthy that in 2018, the Supreme Court, in the Mohanlal vs. State of Punjab case, had established that if the investigating police officer is also the complainant, the trial is compromised, leading to the accused’s entitlement to acquittal. However, a subsequent ruling by a five-judge Constitution Bench in 2020, authored by Justice MR Shah, overturned this decision. The new judgment clarified that the NDPS Act does not explicitly prohibit the informant/complainant from being an investigator and the officer in charge of a police station for NDPS Act offenses.
Background of the Case
The case in question originated when the Excise Range Inspector in Vandiperiyar arrested the accused and confiscated contraband ganja from his possession. Subsequently, the Inspector registered the case, conducted an investigation, and filed a complaint before the Court.
Relying on the principle set forth in Mohan Lal, the Trial Court concluded:
“It is well settled that a fair investigation, which is the foundation of a fair trial, postulates that the informant and the investigator must not be the same person. It is axiomatic that justice must not only be done but must appear to be done also.”
In light of these considerations, the Trial Court held:
“As the informant and the investigator are the same person, it cannot be said that the investigation was fair, judicious, and just, and no prejudice was caused to the accused.”
Case Citation: HYDER vs. STATE OF KERALA, Diary No.- 39255 – 2023
Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab 
