KOCHI: On a near-daily basis, police teams in Ernakulam and other districts pick up individuals on allegations of drug-related offences -- which are treated more or less as open-and-shut cases. But a recent ruling by the judicial first class magistrate court has raised an uncomfortable question for law enforcement: how do officers ascertain the nature of the allegedly seized narcotic?
This came to the fore in a case involving a 31-year-old man arrested last year from Kochi’s Banerji Road for reportedly smoking a ganja beedi. In a judgment delivered on February 2, the court dismissed the case, pointing out glaring lapses in the investigation and the handling of evidence.
According to the prosecution, the accused committed an offence under section 27(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act by smoking a ganja beedi in public. However, the judge noted that the very beedi allegedly seized by police officers was never produced in court. Nor was it sampled in the presence of a magistrate or sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for chemical examination.
“Due to these reasons, it is impossible to ascertain whether the accused was indeed smoking a ganja beedi,” the court observed. It also pointed out that all the witnesses cited in the case were police officers: the detecting officer and members of his team.
The ruling has now become a talking point within police circles. Several officers privately admit that the judgment has exposed the everyday constraints faced by teams on the ground.
“In most cases, the accused dump the narcotic when they notice police officers. At times, only a small portion is apprehended, making it difficult to send it for forensic testing,” an officer said. “Moreover, even in cases in which seizures happen in a public place, people are usually unwilling to come forward as independent witnesses.”
There is also the practical challenge of forensic confirmation. “In some cases, cigarette butts sent to the lab may not show traces of ganja because it has already burnt out,” the officer added.
However, senior cops are less sympathetic. An officer, requesting anonymity, said the court raised valid concerns. “The court sought to know how police could confirm it was ganja without forensic examination. It also noted that no independent witness had attested the seizure mahazar. These are serious procedural lapses,” the officer said.
Legal experts say the judgment sends a strong message. “If the accused had been convicted without scientific proof, it would set a dangerous precedent,” a lawyer said. “Tomorrow, someone smoking an ordinary beedi could be booked under the NDPS Act. The ruling reinforces that suspicion cannot replace evidence.”
The ‘ganja beedi’ case stands as a reminder that even routine arrests must stand the test of law -- and science.