NDPS Act | Framing Of Charges By Court Without Jurisdiction Will Not Affect Evidence Recorded By Special Court: Kerala High Court

Under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), only a special court constituted under the Act can try offences under the Act which are punishable with a term of more than three years.

The petitioner allegedly possessed 1.137 kgs of ganja. The police completed the investigation and submitted the final report before the Sessions Court which is a court notified under the Act. The Sessions Court made over the case for trial and disposal to the Additional Sessions Court – VI, which was not a court notified under the Act. The Additional Sessions Court heard the accused and prosecution under Section 227 of Cr.PC. During this stage, the accused had filed an application for discharge which the court dismissed. The Court framed charges and transferred the case to Additional Sessions Court – VII, which is a notified court.

Additional Sessions Court – VII proceeded with the trial, recorded evidence and the case was taken up for judgment. On finding that the Court which framed the case had no jurisdiction to try the case, the Additional Sessions Court-VII framed fresh charge in the case.

The accused approached the High Court saying that since the initial charge framed him was nullity, the evidence recorded by the subsequent court can be acted upon. He argued that therefore, there was no evidence in the eye of law and he ought to be acquitted.

The Single Bench of Justice K. Babu noted that as per Section 464 of Code of Criminal Procedure a finding or sentence of a valid court would not be deemed invalid merely because no charge was framed or there was any error in the charge unless the Court is of the opinion that there is a failure of justice due to it. The Court observed that according to this provision, even if the trial court did not frame fresh charge, there would have been no invalidity.

The Court noted that the trial court after deciding to frame charge, heard both sides before framing the charge. The Court also noted that even during the trial or after the court pronounced its decision to frame fresh charges, the accused did not raise any objection. The Court held that there is nothing to show that the accused suffered any prejudice due to the framing of charge by a Court which did not have jurisdiction.

Counsel for the Petitioners: Advocates C. V. Manuvilsan, O. A. Anju, Harikrishnan K. P., Surabhi R., Naeem Ibrahim, Vrinda Lakshmanan

Counsel for the Respondents: Public Prosecutor Adv. G. Sudheer

Case No: Crl. Rev. Pet. 1044 of 2024

Case Title: Sojith v State of Kerala and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 645