Informant-Investigator Role Alone Can’t Sustain NDPS Acquittal: Kerala HC Orders Fresh Decision On Existing Evidence

The State appealed the Special Judge’s judgment acquitting the respondent of offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and 22(a), read with Section 8(c), of the NDPS Act.

The acquittal rested on Mohanlal v. State of Punjab, on the ground that the informant and investigating officer were the same person.

The State relied on the subsequent five-Judge Bench decision in Mukesh Singh v. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi), which overruled Mohanlal on that point.

The High Court observed that the trial court had not considered compliance with Sections 42, 50 and 57 of the NDPS Act or whether the evidence established the alleged offences.

Under Mukesh Singh v. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi), the fact that the informant is also the investigator does not, by itself, establish bias, unfairness or prejudice, nor does it automatically entitle the accused to acquittal; the question must be assessed on the facts and circumstances of each case, and bias or prejudice must be established.

Mukesh Singh specifically overruled the contrary rule in Mohanlal v. State of Punjab.

The prosecution alleged offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and 22(a), read with Section 8(c), of the NDPS Act; compliance with Sections 42, 50 and 57 and the sufficiency of the evidence remained matters for the trial court to consider.

The Special Judge acquitted the respondent solely by applying Mohanlal, without determining whether the informant-investigator arrangement caused bias or prejudice on the facts, or addressing the NDPS Act compliance and evidentiary questions.

Since Mukesh Singh had overruled Mohanlal’s general rule, the acquittal could not stand on that sole ground.

However, the High Court did not itself decide whether the statutory requirements were met or whether the evidence proved the charges; it remitted those questions for fresh consideration on the evidence already recorded.

No fresh evidence may be adduced.

The parties were directed to appear before the Special Court on 9 December 2026 at 11:00 a.m.