Hamjith v. State of Kerala

Citation: Crl. M.C. No. 2114 of 2024/ 2024: KER: 76353

Bench:  Hon’ble. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas

Introduction

In the case of Hamjith v. State of Kerala, the Kerala High Court dismissed the criminal charges against the petitioner under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). Hamjith faced allegations of breaching Section 27(b) of the NDPS Act, which criminalizes the consumption of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances. These allegations stemmed from an incident on January 25, 2024, where he was reportedly seen smoking a beedi filled with ganja. However, the prosecution could not provide forensic evidence to confirm the presence of ganja in the beedi, prompting the petitioner to challenge the proceedings in the Kerala High Court.

According to Section 27(b) of the NDPS Act:

 “Whoever consumes any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance other than those specified in sub-clause (b) of clause (viia) of section 2, shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twenty thousand rupees, or with both.”[1]

The Kerala High Court concluded that charges against the petitioner could not remain valid in the absence of forensic evidence verifying the presence of ganja.

Keywords

1. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
2. Forensic analysis
3. Ganja
4. Prosecution dismissed
5. Criminal proceedings
6. Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court
7. Section 27(b) NDPS Act

Facts of the Case

Hamjith, a 26-year-old from Malappuram, Kerala, was arrested on January 25, 2024, by the Malappuram Police under Crime No. 208/2024 for allegedly smoking a beedi filled with ganja, an illegal substance under the NDPS Act. The case proceeded in the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram, referenced as S.T. No. 435/2024.

His defense argued the absence of forensic proof to confirm the beedi contained ganja, rendering the prosecution’s claims invalid. Petitioner’s lawyer, Sri. Navaneeth N. Nath, lodged a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl. M.C. No. 2114 of 2024) to annul the proceedings due to this lack of evidence. The State of Kerala, represented by Public Prosecutor Sri. Noushad K.A., maintained support for the prosecution.

Issue

1. Whether the prosecution could legally proceed in the absence of forensic evidence establishing that the petitioner had consumed a beedi containing ganja, thereby contravening Section 27(b) of the NDPS Act.

Rules and Order Analysis

The court evaluated the necessity for forensic evidence under the NDPS Act, particularly in cases requiring scientific verification of the substance to support a conviction under Section 27(b). The essence of this case revolves around the relationship between substantive and procedural stipulations of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The petitioner was charged under Section 27(b) of the NDPS Act, which prescribes penalties for the consumption of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances. For a successful prosecution under this section, there must be credible and admissible evidence demonstrating that the accused consumed a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance as defined by the NDPS Act. The critical issue at hand is the absence of a forensic examination of the alleged contraband — a beedi suspected to contain ganja. Section 27(b) specifies:

> “Whoever consumes any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance other than those specified in Section 27(a) shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with a fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both.”

To support a conviction under this section, the prosecution must demonstrate that the consumed substance qualifies as a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, typically validated through forensic analysis. Simply asserting that the petitioner smoked ganja without subjecting the substance to forensic scrutiny weakens the prosecution’s argument. The NDPS Act underscores the need for evidentiary integrity given the severe consequences for violations. Accordingly, Section 52A[2] mandates the sampling and forensic analysis of seized substances, ensuring proper identification and legal admissibility in court. Failure to adhere to these protocols can significantly jeopardize the prosecution’s case.

In its ruling, the Kerala High Court referenced two significant precedents that influenced the case’s dismissal. Both highlighted that forensic analysis is essential for identifying narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, as reliance on sensory evidence or suspicions based on smell is insufficient.

Section 27(b) mandates that the prosecution must prove the presence of a narcotic drug beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given the strict penalties involved. Without forensic evidence, the prosecution’s case is based on assumptions. Identifying narcotic drugs like ganja (cannabis) under Section 2(iii) of the NDPS Act requires precise chemical analysis conducted by an accredited forensic lab.

The court noted the absence of any forensic testing in this instance. The mere suspicion by a police officer that the beedi contained ganja was inadequate for sustaining a charge. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas stressed that suspicion or the personal experience of officers in recognizing certain odors or appearances cannot replace scientific proof, which is essential per established legal standards for cases involving narcotic drug

The NDPS Act outlines the definitions and penalties for narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances under Sections 2(xi)[3] and 2(xxiii)[4] and necessitates evidence of specific narcotic substance consumption under Section 27(b). Thus, the prosecution is required to produce forensic evidence verifying the contraband’s nature.

The Court cited two significant precedents. The first precedent is Ibnu Shijil v. State of Kerala (2024)[5] where the apex The court ruled that relying solely on the smell of a substance cannot substantiate charges under the NDPS Act without forensic backing. The second case precedent refer to was Anurag Shaji v. State of Kerala (2023)[6] wherein The verdict established that without forensic examination confirming narcotic substances, there is no legal ground for prosecution under the NDPS Act.

Applying these precedents, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas noted that, in this case, the lack of forensic verification regarding the presence of ganja in the beedi rendered the prosecution’s claims baseless. The judgment underscored the NDPS Act’s rigorous evidence requirements to guarantee justice.

The Kerala High Court also referenced Section 52A alongside related NDPS Act provisions, which delineate the protocols required for managing seized substances, including the necessity for samples to be sent to authorized labs for analysis. The lack of such analysis in this situation indicated the prosecution’s failure to satisfy necessary evidentiary standards mandated by the NDPS Act. Moreover, the court indicated that criminal law’s burden of proof requires demonstrating the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The absence of forensic evidence not only weakened the prosecution’s case but also rendered it legally untenable under the NDPS Act. Thus, relying solely on sensory impressions or conjectures without scientific validation is an insufficient basis for prosecution.

Judgment

The Kerala High Court annulled the criminal proceedings against Hamjith, emphasizing that prosecution could not proceed without forensic evidence. It determined that the case relied solely on suspicion, insufficient to uphold charges under Section 27(b) of the NDPS Act.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas remarked:

> “In the absence of any forensic examination of the beedi, the prosecution against the petitioner for the offence under Section 27(b) of the Act is without any legal basis. Hence, the proceedings against the petitioner in S.T. No. 435/2024 are hereby quashed.”[7]

This ruling reflects a commitment to ensuring a fair trial and due process, affirming that individuals cannot be prosecuted or penalized based solely on assumptions or unverified claims. The judgment reinforces the court’s insistence on adherence to established procedures under the NDPS Act, with a specific focus on the scientific identification and verification of substances.

Conclusion

This case highlights the crucial role of forensic evidence in prosecutions under the NDPS Act. The ruling reflects the judiciary’s dedication to ensuring fairness, due process, and legal clarity in criminal proceedings, especially regarding severe laws like the NDPS Act.The Kerala High Court’s decision in Hamjith v. State of Kerala serves as an important precedent, reiterating that prosecutions must rely on concrete, verifiable evidence rather than mere conjecture. This ruling underscores the significance of forensic analysis in the fair enforcement of the NDPS Act and in safeguarding individuals against wrongful accusations.

[1] Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, § 27(b).

[2] Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, § 52A.

[3] Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, § 2(xi).

[4] Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, § 2(xxiii).

[5] Ibnu Shijil v. State of Kerala, 2024 (5) KHC 476.

[6] Anurag Shaji v. State of Kerala, 2023 KHC Online 9406.

[7] Hanjith v. State, (2024) KHC (Ker.), at para. 15.