Pranav B Prem

The Kerala High Court has emphasized the grave consequences of false accusations in cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), and urged the Union Government to address the inadequacy of punishment under Section 58 of the Act for those making such accusations. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, in a detailed judgment, highlighted how false implications can devastate lives and called for proportionate penalties to deter such actions.

Case Background

The case arose from a bail application filed by M.N. Narayana Das, the accused in Crime No. 05/2023 of the Chalakudy Excise Range Office. The petitioner was accused of providing false information to authorities, leading to the wrongful implication of Sheela Sunny in an NDPS case. The woman was arrested and charged under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, which prescribes a minimum punishment of 10 years’ imprisonment, extendable to 20 years. According to the prosecution, the petitioner had conveyed false information to the detecting officer, resulting in the seizure of 0.160 grams of suspected LSD stamps from the scooter belonging to the victim. However, a subsequent chemical analysis report dated May 12, 2023, confirmed that the seized substance did not contain LSD. Consequently, the charges against Sheela Sunny were quashed, but only after she endured 72 days of imprisonment due to the false allegations.

The Court observed that the petitioner, a close associate of the victim’s daughter-in-law’s sister, had orchestrated the false implication. It was alleged that the contraband was planted in the victim’s scooter by the sister of her daughter-in-law as part of a conspiracy. The petitioner had acted maliciously, knowingly providing false information to the authorities.

Observations of the Court

Justice Kunhikrishnan made scathing observations about the impact of false accusations, stating, “False accusations can ruin life, and those who make them must be held accountable. The consequences of false implications can be devastating to the victims in such cases.” The Court noted that while the penalty under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act for possessing contraband in commercial quantities starts at a minimum of 10 years, those falsely implicating others under Section 58(2) face a maximum sentence of just two years. This disparity, the Court said, was glaring and needed urgent legislative intervention.

Justice Kunhikrishnan remarked, “False accusations are the most malignant and venomous of all calumnies. Hence, sentences to be imposed by a court of law in such cases should be fair, proportionate and just. The punishment should fit the crime and the sentence should reflect the severity of the offence. If there is any inadequacy in the sentence in these types of cases, the Parliament should think seriously about the same.” The Registry was directed to forward a copy of the judgment to the Union Government for necessary action.

Prosecution’s Case and Petitioner’s Submissions

The Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petitioner’s plea for anticipatory bail, highlighting the seriousness of the allegations and the need for a thorough investigation, including the conspiracy angle. It was also revealed that the Investigating Officer had collected call detail records of the petitioner and other suspects, which suggested a coordinated effort to frame the victim. The petitioner’s counsel argued that Section 58(2) of the NDPS Act, being a bailable offence, should not warrant custodial interrogation. The defense also pointed out procedural lapses, such as the delayed chemical analysis of the contraband, which they argued could have led to the evaporation of LSD content. However, the Court dismissed these contentions, stating that the case required comprehensive investigation.

Directions of the Court

The Court denied bail to the petitioner, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations. Justice Kunhikrishnan directed the State Police Chief to expedite the investigation within three months and ensure a fair trial. The Court also set a deadline of four months for the completion of the trial by the jurisdictional court. In a poignant remark, the Court questioned, “A poor lady is implicated in an NDPS case because of some enmity and she continued in jail after registration of the case for about 72 days. Who will compensate her for this?” The Court stressed the need for holding individuals accountable for false accusations to maintain public trust in the judicial system.

Cause Title: M M Narayana Das v State of Kerala

Case No: BAIL APPL. NO. 4623 OF 2024

Date: January-27-2025

Bench: Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan

[Read/Download order]