In a recent ruling on December 10, 2024, the Supreme Court of India overturned a Kerala High Court order that had condoned a significant delay in filing an appeal against the acquittal of Hyder, the appellant, in a narcotics case. The case was adjudicated by a bench comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, marking a pivotal moment in the application of procedural justice.
Background of the Case
The case originated with the acquittal of Hyder on December 10, 2018, by the Special Court. The trial court ruled in Hyder’s favor, citing multiple grounds, including the prosecution’s failure to establish that the sample analyzed by the laboratory was indeed linked to the contraband seized from the accused. Additionally, the acquittal relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab (2018), which emphasized that the informant and investigator should not be the same person to ensure a fair investigation.
However, in Mukesh Singh v. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi) (2020), the Supreme Court overruled Mohan Lal, holding that the mere fact of the informant also serving as the investigator does not inherently vitiate the investigation. The Kerala High Court, citing this subsequent change in legal precedent, condoned a delay of 1184 days in filing an appeal against the acquittal.
Key Legal Issues
- Delay Condonation: The High Court allowed the delay of over three years in filing the appeal, justifying it on the grounds of a subsequent change in legal precedent.
- Application of Subsequent Legal Precedents: Whether a change in law can serve as sufficient ground to reopen a case that has already reached finality.
Supreme Court’s Observations and Decision
The Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s rationale, stating that the State had provided “hardly any acceptable explanation” for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. The Court observed:
“Subsequent change of law will not be attracted unless a case is pending before the competent court awaiting its final adjudication. To say it differently, if a case has already been decided, it cannot be reopened and re-decided solely on the basis of a new interpretation given to that law.” (Delhi Development Authority v. Tejpal & Ors.)
The bench also highlighted that the acquittal was based not only on Mohan Lal but also on evidentiary shortcomings that stood unaddressed by the prosecution.
Setting aside the High Court’s order dated June 23, 2023, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of procedural discipline and the need to prevent the misuse of condonation provisions to reopen settled cases.
Parties Involved
- Appellant: Hyder, represented by Mr. Ritesh Kumar Chowdhary, assisted by Mr. Niyas Valiyathodi and Mr. Akash Kumar Singh.
- Respondent: State of Kerala, represented by Mr. Harshad V. Hameed, Mr. Dileep Poolakkot, Mrs. Ashly Harshad, and Mr. Amar Nath Singh.
