STATE OF KERALA vs SHANAVAS @ SATHYAN

Court
Kerala High Court

CNR : KLHC010462562021

CRL.A NO. 242 OF 2023 1 2026:KER:86310
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
TH
WEDNESDAY, THE 11 DAY OF NOVEMBER 2026 / 20TH KARTHIKA, 1948
CRL.A NO. 242 OF 2023
CRIME NO.06/2011 OF Trivandrum Excise Circle Office,
Thiruvananthapuram
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.10.2018 IN SC NO.1032 OF
2012 OF II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SAJEEV P K
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED:
SHANAVAS @ SATHYAN
S/O.DAVEED ERAM THADIKKAD SAHIL MANZIL
THADIKKAD DESOM, VADAMON POST OFFICE, ANJAL VILLAGE,
PATHANAPURAM TALUK
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.RAJENDRAN
SHRI.B.N.HASKAR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
11.11.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CNR : KLHC010462562021

CRL.A NO. 242 OF 2023 2 2026:KER:86310
CR
JUDGMENT
th
Dated this the 11 day of November, 2026
This appeal has been filed by the State of Kerala, challenging
the judgment rendered by the learned Special Judge under the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short,
‘the NDPS Act’ hereinafter) (Additional Sessions Judge - II),
Thiruvananthapuram, dated 30.10.2018, whereby the learned
Special Judge acquitted the respondent herein/accused, where the
prosecution alleged commission of offences punishable under
Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and 22(a) r/w 8(c) of the NDPS Act, by the
respondent/accused, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in Mohanlal v. State of Punjab reported in 2018 (3) KLT
852 .
2. Heard Sri.Sajeev P.K., learned Public Prosecutor
appearing for the appellant/prosecution and Adv.Sri.C.Rajendran,
the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused.
3. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor
that the impugned judgment of acquittal was rendered by the
learned Special Judge, merely relying on the ratio laid down in

CNR : KLHC010462562021

CRL.A NO. 242 OF 2023 3 2026:KER:86310
Mohanlal ’s case (supra), taking the view that the informant and the
Investigating Officer must not be the same person, on the finding
that, in the instant case also, the informant himself as the
Investigating Officer. However, it is pointed out that, in a
subsequent decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Mukesh Singh v. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi) reported in
2020 (5) KHC 1 : (2020) SCC OnLine SC 700 : AIR 2020 SC
4794 : (2020) 10 SCC 120 , a five-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble
Apex Court considered the correctness of the decision in
Mohanlal ’s case (supra) and overruled the ratio in Mohanlal ’s
case (supra). Paragraph Nos.11 and 12 of the decision in Mukesh
Singh ’s case (supra) are relevant and are extracted hereunder:
“11. Therefore, as such, there is no reason to doubt the
credibility of the informant and doubt the entire case of
the prosecution solely on the ground that the informant has
investigated the case. Solely on the basis of some
apprehension or the doubts, the entire prosecution version
cannot be discarded and the accused is not to be
straightway acquitted unless and until the accused is able to
establish and prove the bias and the prejudice. As held by
this Court in the case of Ram Chandra (supra) the question
of prejudice or bias has to be established and
not inferred. The question of bias will have to
be decided on the facts of each case [See Vipan

CNR : KLHC010462562021

CRL.A NO. 242 OF 2023 4 2026:KER:86310
Kumar Jain (supra)]. At this stage, it is required to be
noted and as observed hereinabove, NDPS Act is a
Special Act with the special purpose and with special
provisions including Section 68 which provides that no
officer acting in exercise of powers vested in him under
any provision of the NDPS Act or any Rule or order
made thereunder shall be compelled to say from where
he got any information as to the commission of any
offence. Therefore, considering the NDPS Act being a
special Act with special procedure to be followed under
Chapter V, and as observed hereinabove, there is no
specific bar against conducting the investigation by the
informant himself and in view of the safeguard
provided under the Act itself, namely, Section 58, we
are of the opinion that there cannot be any general
proposition of law to be laid down that in every case
where the informant is the investigator, the trial is
vitiated and the accused is entitled to acquittal.
Similarly, even with respect to offences under the
Indian Penal Code, as observed hereinabove, there is no
specific bar against the informant/complainant
investigating the case. Only in a case where the accused
has been able to establish and prove the bias and/or
unfair investigation by the informant-cum-investigator
and the case of the prosecution is merely based upon the
deposition of the informant-cum-investigator, meaning
thereby prosecution does not rely upon other witnesses,
more particularly the independent witnesses, in that

CNR : KLHC010462562021

CRL.A NO. 242 OF 2023 5 2026:KER:86310
case, where the complainant himself had conducted the
investigation, such aspect of the matter can certainly be
given due weightage while assessing the evidence on
record. Therefore, as rightly observed by this Court in
the case of Bhaskar Ramappa Madar (supra), the
matter has to be decided on a case to case basis without
any universal generalisation. As rightly held by this
Court in the case of V. Jayapaul (supra), there is no bar
against the informant police officer to investigate the
case. As rightly observed, if at all, such investigation
could only be assailed on the ground of bias or real
likelihood of bias on the part of the investigating officer
the question of bias would depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case and therefore it is not
proper to lay down a broad and unqualified proposition
that in every case where the police officer who
registered the case by lodging the first information,
conducts the investigation that itself had caused
prejudice to the accused and thereby it vitiates the
entire prosecution case and the accused is entitled to
acquittal.
12. From the above discussion and for the reasons
stated above, we conclude and answer the reference as
under:
I. That the observations of this Court in the cases of
Bhagwan Singh v. State of Rajasthan(1976 KHC 568 :
(1976) 1 SCC 15); Megha Singh v. State of Haryana
(1996 KHC 1377 : (1996) 11 SCC 709) ; and State by

CNR : KLHC010462562021

CRL.A NO. 242 OF 2023 6 2026:KER:86310
Inspector of Police, NIB, Tamil Nadu v. Rajangam
(2010 KHC 5119 : (2010) 15 SCC 369) and the acquittal
of the accused by this Court on the ground that as the
informant and the investigator was the same, it has
vitiated the trial and the accused is entitled to acquittal
are to be treated to be confined to their own facts. It
cannot be said that in the aforesaid decisions, this Court
laid down any general proposition of law that in each
and every case where the informant is the investigator
there is a bias caused to the accused and the entire
prosecution case is to be disbelieved and the accused is
entitled to acquittal;
II. In a case where the informant himself is the
investigator, by that itself cannot be said that the
investigation is vitiated on the ground of bias or the like
factor. The question of bias or prejudice would depend
upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
Therefore, merely because the informant is the
investigator, by that itself the investigation would not
suffer the vice of unfairness or bias and therefore on the
sole ground that informant is the investigator, the
accused is not entitled to acquittal. The matter has to be
decided on a case to case basis. A contrary decision of
this Court in the case of Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab
(2018 (4) KHC 387 : (2018) 17 SCC 627) and any other
decision taking a contrary view that the informant
cannot be the investigator and in such a case the

CNR : KLHC010462562021

CRL.A NO. 242 OF 2023 7 2026:KER:86310
accused is entitled to acquittal are not good law and
they are specifically overruled. ”
4. Whereas, it is submitted by the learned counsel for
the respondent/accused that, on going through the judgment in
Mukesh Singh ’s case (supra), particularly the observations in
paragraph 12, when the informant himself became the Investigating
Officer, the same has to be analysed in a case to case basis.
5. On perusal of the verdict impugned, it is seen that
the learned Special Judge did not address the question of compliance
with Sections 42, 50 and 57 of the NDPS Act or the question as to
whether the evidence available was sufficient to substantiate the
commission of the offences alleged by the respondent/accused.
Without addressing these issues, straight away, the learned Special
Judge recorded acquittal, relying on Mohanlal ’s case (supra).
Since the ratio in Mohanlal ’s case (supra) is overruled in Mukesh
Singh ’s case (supra), where the Hon’ble Apex Court held that in a
case where the informant himself is the investigator, by that itself
cannot be said that the investigation is vitiated on the ground of bias
or the like factor. The question of bias or prejudice would depend
upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, merely

CNR : KLHC010462562021

CRL.A NO. 242 OF 2023 8 2026:KER:86310
because the informant is the investigator, by that itself the
investigation would not suffer the vice of unfairness or bias and
therefore on the sole ground that informant is the investigator, the
accused is not entitled to acquittal. The matter has to be decided on a
case to case basis. Since the law held in Mukesh Singh ’s case
(supra) is the law of the land, as indicated above, the acquittal
recorded merely relying on the said decision is liable to be interfered
and set aside. However, as already pointed out, the learned Special
Judge did not address either the question of compliance with the
mandatory requirements under Sections 42, 50 and 57 of the NDPS
Act or the question as to whether the evidence available was
sufficient to substantiate the commission of the offences under
Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and 22(a) r/w 8(c) of the NDPS Act by the accused.
Therefore, the learned Special Judge shall consider the matter afresh and
deliver judgment in accordance with law, after providing opportunity to
the prosecution as well as the accused to advance their contentions.
Accordingly, the judgment under challenge is reversed and set aside, and
the matter is remanded back to Special Court (Additional Sessions Court -
II), Thiruvananthapuram, for fresh consideration, after hearing both
sides, based on the evidence already adduced, and fresh evidence

CNR : KLHC010462562021

CRL.A NO. 242 OF 2023 9 2026:KER:86310
shall not be adduced on any grounds.
The parties are directed to appear before the Special Court
(Additional Sessions Court - II), Thiruvananthapuram at 11.00 a.m.
on 09.12.2026.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the
Special Court, for information and compliance.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
Bb