Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-004041-004041 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 8941/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms retrial jurisprudence in Ukha Kolhe; overrules High Court’s order for retrial |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law (NDPS Act, Evidence Act, CrPC) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | A retrial is an exceptional remedy under Ukha Kolhe and Nasib Singh and cannot be ordered simply to cure lapses that can be addressed by additional evidence or appellate review. Electronic records satisfying Section 65B are admissible like documents without live witness narration. Chemical Examiner reports are admissible under Section 293 CrPC without mandatory personal examination. Non-production of contraband does not, by itself, justify retrial where NDPS Section 52-A inventories and samples properly connect the bulk and tested samples. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Principles of retrial under Ukha Kolhe; Section 65B Evidence Act; Section 293 and Section 52-A CrPC; Section 391 CrPC and appellate power to call additional evidence; safe custody and chain of possession for NDPS samples. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | A police raid yielded 39 kg and subsequently 107.90 kg of ganja from four accused in separate locations. A photographer recorded the search; samples were sealed and sent for chemical analysis. Trial Court convicted two accused based on oral and video evidence; High Court ordered a retrial on procedural grounds relating to electronic evidence and NDPS sample handling. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All courts in India |
| Persuasive For | High Courts and trial courts on video evidence admissibility |
| Overrules | High Court direction for retrial in Criminal Appeal Nos. 449/2023 & 457/2024 |
| Distinguishes | Requirement of live narration under Section 65B(4) |
| Follows | Ukha Kolhe v. State of Maharashtra; Nasib Singh v. State of Punjab |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Section 65B(4) certificate suffices to admit video recordings as documentary evidence without playing the recording during each witness’s deposition.
- Once admitted under Section 65B, video-recordings may be directly viewed by the court and parties without live narration or transcripts.
- Chemical Examiner’s report is admissible under Section 293 CrPC without mandatory personal examination unless specifically ordered.
- Non-production of bulk contraband does not automatically warrant retrial when NDPS Section 52-A inventories, sealed samples, and FSL reports link the seized material to tested samples.
- Retrial remains an exceptional remedy under Ukha Kolhe and Nasib Singh, not a tool to cure every procedural misstep when appellate powers and additional-evidence provisions suffice.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Surveyed retrial jurisprudence (Ukha Kolhe; Nasib Singh): retrial only in “exceptional” cases to avert miscarriage of justice.
- Held that electronic records with Section 65B(4) certificate are admissible like documents without a requirement for witness narration or transcripts.
- Confirmed that Chemical Examiner reports are admissible under Section 293 CrPC; personal examination is discretionary.
- Reviewed NDPS Act Section 52-A: inventories, magistrate-certified photographs and samples are primary evidence.
- Noted appellate courts may use Section 391 CrPC to call additional evidence rather than ordering retrial.
- Found High Court’s retrial order based on procedural non-compliance in video admission and sample handling was misplaced.
- Set aside retrial direction and restored appeals for fresh merits hearing.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant)
- High Court misapplied the Ukha Kolhe standard; trial deficiencies should lead to acquittal or lodging additional evidence under Section 391 CrPC, not retrial.
- Evidence gaps could have been cured on appeal without wiping out the entire trial record.
Respondent-State
- The CD was duly certified under Section 65B(4) and admissible without live testimony.
- FSL report was automatically admissible under Section 293 CrPC; no mandatory CA examination.
- NDPS Section 52-A inventories and sealed samples were on record; non-production of bulk contraband was not fatal.
- Retrial was unnecessary; Section 391 CrPC additional-evidence power sufficed.
Factual Background
A narcotics raid on 23 September 2020 recovered 39 kg ganja from a hut and, on follow-up, 107.90 kg from a co-accused’s residence. The raid was video-recorded; samples drawn on the spot were sealed and sent for chemical analysis. The Trial Court convicted two accused (Kailas and Raju) based on oral testimony, video, and FSL reports. The High Court set aside the conviction and ordered retrial for procedural lapses in admitting electronic evidence and handling NDPS samples. The Supreme Court heard an appeal against the retrial direction.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 65B, Indian Evidence Act: Admissibility of electronic records on production of a compliant certificate; no additional live narration or transcript required.
- Section 293, CrPC: Government scientific expert reports are admissible; court may summon the expert but is not obliged.
- Section 52-A, NDPS Act: Procedures for inventory, magistrate-certified photography, sample-drawing, and primacy of those records as primary evidence.
- Section 391, CrPC: Appellate court’s power to call for additional evidence to supplement the record.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Retrial standards from Ukha Kolhe and Nasib Singh
- 🚨 Breaking Precedent – High Court’s added requirement for live video narration overruled
- 🔄 Conflicting Decisions – Supreme Court versus High Court on electronic-evidence procedure