Kailas Bajirao Pawar v. State of Maharashtra 2025 INSC 1117 - S. 65B Evidence Act - S.52A NDPS Act - S.293 CrPC

Case Name and Neutral Citation

• Case Name: Kailas S/o Bajirao Pawar v. State of Maharashtra
• Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1117
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Criminal Appeal No.: Of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.4646 of 2025)

Coram

• Justice Manoj Misra
• Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Judgment Date

• Date of Judgment: 15 September 2025

Caselaws and Citations Referred

1. Ukha Kolhe v. State of Maharashtra
2. • Citation: AIR 1963 SC 1531
2. Nasib Singh v. State of Punjab and Another
3. • Citation: (2022) 2 SCC 89
3. Jitendra and Another v. State of M. P.
4. • Citation: (2004) 10 SCC 562
4. Ashok v. State of M.P.
5. • Citation: (2011) 5 SCC 123
5. Vijay Jain v. State of M.P.
6. • Citation: (2013) 14 SCC 527
6. Noor Aga v. State of Punjab
7. • Citation: (2008) 16 SCC 417
7. Union of India v. Jaroopram
8. • Citation: (2018) 4 SCC 334
8. Baldev Singh v. State of Haryana
9. • Citation: (2021) 18 SCC 523
9. Vijay Pandey v. State of U.P.
10. • Citation: (2019) 18 SCC 215
10. State of Rajasthan v. Sahi Ram
11. • Citation: (2019) 10 SCC 649

Statutes/Laws Referred

• Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act)
• • Section 8(c)
  • Section 20(b)(ii)(C)
  • Section 2(iii)(b)
  • Section 52-A
• Indian Evidence Act, 1872
• • Section 65B (especially sub-section (4))
  • Section 114(g)
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)
• • Section 293
  • Section 386
  • Section 391
  • Section 313
  • Section 465

1. What was the central issue in the case of Kailas Bajirao Pawar v. State of Maharashtra?

The central issue revolved around the legality and sufficiency of evidence presented in a Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act case, specifically concerning the admissibility of electronic evidence (video recordings of the raid) and the procedure for proving seized contraband. The High Court had ordered a re-trial due to perceived procedural errors in handling this evidence, a decision which the Supreme Court subsequently reviewed.

2. Why did the High Court order a re-trial in this case?

The High Court ordered a re-trial for several reasons:

• Video Recording Admissibility: It believed the video recording of the search and seizure, though existing with a Section 65B certificate, was not properly "converted into admissible evidence." This included not playing the video during each witness's deposition for explanation and lack of a transcript.
• Chemical Examiner's Testimony: The Chemical Examiner (CA) was not produced as a witness to prove their report.
• Production of Samples: The prosecution failed to produce remnant samples from the CA's office and representative samples drawn at the time of seizure and before the Magistrate.

3. What was the Supreme Court's view on the High Court's reasons for ordering a re-trial?

The Supreme Court disagreed with all of the High Court's reasons for ordering a re-trial:

• Video Recording: The Supreme Court stated that once a video recording meets the requirements of Section 65B of the Evidence Act (i.e., with a proper certificate), it becomes admissible as primary evidence. It is not a legal requirement to play the video during each witness's deposition for explanation or to prepare a transcript. The video's contents, like any document, can be seen and heard by the court to draw inferences.
• Chemical Examiner: The Supreme Court clarified that under Section 293 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a Chemical Examiner's report is admissible ipso facto (by itself) as evidence without necessarily calling the examiner as a witness, unless the court deems it necessary.
• Production of Samples: While acknowledging the importance of proving the correlation between seized contraband and tested samples, the Supreme Court stated that mere non-production of the entire seized contraband during trial is not always fatal, especially if Section 52-A of the NDPS Act procedures (inventory, sample drawing, photographs certified by a Magistrate) have been followed and documented. The appellate court has powers to take additional evidence under Section 391 CrPC if needed, rather than ordering a re-trial.

4. What are the established principles for directing a re-trial in criminal cases?

The Supreme Court, referring to precedents like Ukha Kolhe v. State of Maharashtra and Nasib Singh v. State of Punjab, emphasized that a re-trial is an exceptional measure, not to be ordered routinely. Key principles include:

• It should only be directed in "exceptional" circumstances to avert a miscarriage of justice.
• Mere lapses in investigation or a prosecutor's failure to lead evidence (which they could have) are generally not sufficient grounds.
• Grounds for re-trial include a trial court lacking jurisdiction, a trial vitiated by serious illegalities/irregularities due to a misconception of proceedings, or a prosecutor being prevented (due to reasons beyond their control) from adducing material evidence, rendering the trial a "farce, sham or charade."
• A re-trial "wipes out" the previous proceedings, exposing the accused to another trial.

5. How does Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act apply to electronic evidence like video recordings?

Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the admissibility of electronic records. For an electronic record (like a video on a CD) to be admissible, it generally requires a certificate under sub-section (4) from the person in charge of the computer or device producing the electronic record. This certificate attests to the conditions under which the electronic record was produced. Once this requirement is fulfilled, the electronic record becomes an admissible piece of evidence, akin to a document. The Supreme Court clarified that there's no additional legal requirement to have witnesses orally explain the video's contents or to create a transcript for it to be admissible, although an explanatory statement might be useful in some cases.

6. What is the significance of Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding scientific expert reports?

Section 293 CrPC makes the reports of certain government scientific experts, including Chemical Examiners, admissible as evidence in inquiries, trials, or other proceedings without necessarily requiring the expert to be summoned and examined in person. While the court may summon and examine the expert if it deems fit, it is not a mandatory requirement for the report's admissibility. The Supreme Court highlighted that insisting on the CA's examination in every NDPS case, as suggested by the High Court, is not a legal mandate.

7. Why is the proper handling and proof of seized contraband important in NDPS cases, and what role does Section 52-A of the NDPS Act play?

The proper handling and proof of seized contraband are crucial because they form the core of the prosecution's case in NDPS matters. The prosecution must establish a clear link between the seized material, the samples sent for forensic analysis, and the report confirming the presence of narcotic drugs.

• Corroboration: There must be evidence to connect the forensic report with the substance seized from the accused.
• Custody Chain: Maintaining proper custody of the seized contraband from seizure to FSL report and court production is essential to prevent tampering.
• Section 52-A NDPS Act: This section allows for the inventory, drawing of samples, and photographing of seized contraband in the presence of a Magistrate. Critically, sub-section (4) states that the inventory, photographs, and certified list of samples by the Magistrate shall be treated as primary evidence. This provision allows for the use of these documents as evidence even if the bulk quantity of contraband is not physically produced in court, particularly when the contraband is bulky or has been disposed of legally.

8. What was the final decision of the Supreme Court and its rationale?

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order for a re-trial. Instead of acquitting the accused or affirming the conviction, it directed that the criminal appeals be restored to the High Court for a fresh decision in accordance with the law. The rationale for this decision was:

• The Supreme Court found the High Court's reasons for ordering a re-trial to be misconceived and baseless, as the procedural errors cited were not grounds for a re-trial under established legal principles.
• Neither the High Court nor the Trial Court had fully enlisted or addressed the entire evidence on record, making it difficult for the Supreme Court to make a definitive decision on the merits of the charge.
• Directly deciding on the merits would deprive the parties of their right to appeal before the High Court.
• Restoring the appeals would allow the High Court to properly assess all available evidence, including the electronic and scientific evidence, under the correct legal framework, ensuring justice for both the appellants and the prosecution. The appellant was allowed to remain on bail during this process.