The Supreme Court held that a retrial is an exceptional remedy not warranted merely to rectify procedural lapses in evidence admission. Electronic evidence complying with Section 65B of the Evidence Act is admissible without a transcript. The non-examination of a Chemical Analyst or non-production of samples is not automatically fatal, as an appellate court can remedy such defects under Section 391 CrPC instead of ordering a retrial.
Facts Of The Case:
The case originated from a raid conducted by police on a hut based on information that the appellant, Kailas, and another accused were stocking Ganja for sale. Following due procedure, the raiding party, which included panch witnesses and a gazetted officer, searched the hut and recovered 18 plastic packets containing 39 kilograms of Ganja. Samples were drawn and sealed on the spot. Subsequently, based on disclosures, a third accused was implicated, leading to a further recovery of 107.90 kilograms of Ganja from his residence. The appellant and three others were charge-sheeted and tried for offences under the NDPS Act. The Trial Court convicted the appellant and one co-accused, relying heavily on the substantive evidence and a video recording of the raid proceedings. On appeal, the High Court set aside the conviction but ordered a retrial, citing procedural flaws in converting the video recording into legally admissible evidence and the non-examination of the Chemical Analyst. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s direction for a retrial.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of this case began with the conviction of the appellant by the Trial Court under the NDPS Act. Aggrieved by this conviction, the appellant filed a criminal appeal before the High Court. The High Court, in its impugned judgment, set aside the conviction but ordered a retrial of the case, citing significant procedural errors in the admission of evidence during the original trial. Challenging the direction for a retrial, the appellant then filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in the present judgment, allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order for a retrial, and instead restored the criminal appeals to the file of the High Court for a fresh decision on merits.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court Slams Misuse of Criminal Law to Settle Civil Disputes, Quashes Proceedings
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court observed that a retrial is an exceptional remedy to be directed only in cases of a fundamental illegality vitiating the entire trial, and not merely to enable the prosecution to fill in lacunae in its evidence. It held that the video recording of the raid, accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, was admissible as electronic evidence without the necessity of being played during each witness’s deposition or being reduced to a transcript. The Court further noted that the report of the Chemical Analyst is admissible under Section 293 of the CrPC without his examination, and that non-production of the bulk contraband is not fatal if the seizure, sampling, and forensic report are otherwise reliably established through procedures like inventory under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. The appellate court, it emphasized, has sufficient power under Section 391 CrPC to address such procedural defects without resorting to the extreme step of a retrial.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s order directing a retrial. It held that the grounds cited by the High Court, including the procedural handling of the video evidence and the non-examination of the Chemical Analyst, did not warrant the exceptional remedy of a retrial. The Court restored the criminal appeals filed by the appellant and his co-accused to the file of the High Court for a fresh decision on their merits, in accordance with the law. The appellant was directed to continue on bail, and the High Court was requested to decide the appeals preferably within six months.
Case Details:
Case Title: KAILAS S/O BAJIRAO PAWAR Versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Citation: 2025 INSC 1117 Criminal Appeal No.: (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.4646 of 2025) Date of Judgement: September 15, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Download The Judgement Here