Expert’s Informal Opinion Not Binding On Courts: Madras HC Grants Bail To Man Held With 56 Gms Of Magic Mushroom
The Madras High Court granted bail to a man held with 56 grams of magic mushroom and observed that the Court cannot decide the language used in the legislation and the purport of the provision of Act, based on an informal opinion rendered by the Expert as such an opinion is not binding on the Court.
The Petitioner/Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody for the alleged offences under Sections 8(c), 22(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 approached the High Court seeking bail.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice N.Anand Venkatesh said, “At the stage of deciding the bail application by taking note of Section 37 of NDPS Act, the Court must only be satisfied on the overall circumstances and the point of law that has been raised and the Court must look at the material in a broad manner and prima facie satisfy itself that there is a reasonable chance of the accused to be held not guilty. It is not necessary for the Court to undertake a meticulous examination of the materials collected during the investigation.”
Advocate K. Pragadesh Ganapathy represented the Petitioner while Additional Public Prosecutor S.Ravi represented the Respondent.
It was the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was found in possession of 56 grams of Magic Mushroom. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody and the entire contraband was seized. It was the case of the Respondent Police that the mandatory requirements under the Act had been followed. The Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the quantity in excess of 50 grams is considered to be a commercial quantity.
It was the applicant’s case that the even though there was presence of Psilocybin, the quantity of Psilocybin that was present in the Magic Mushroom that was said to have been seized had not been independently assessed and therefore, it couldn’t be presumed that the petitioner was in possession of commercial quantity.
Referring to an earlier order of the Court, the Bench said, “ I respectfully did not agree with the earlier order passed on 21.10.2024 by Hon'ble Mr.Justice D.Bharatha Chakravarthy, since that order was passed after the Hon'ble Judge had an informal interaction with an Expert through Video Conferencing platform.”
It was further noticed that the Expert informed the Court that it was not possible to separately weigh the chemical Psilocybin, which is present in the Magic Mushroom. Based on the opinion given by the Expert, the Judge came to a conclusion that the total weight of the Magic Mushroom must be considered equivalent to the total weight of chemical Psilocybin.“This Court, while exercising bail jurisdiction, must look into the language that is used in the Enactment and decide the case accordingly”, it held.
As per the Bench, when the informal opinion was sought for by the Judge in the earlier Order, there was no chance for the accused person to cross-examine the Expert. “The Court cannot decide the language used in the legislation and the purport of the provision of Act, based on informal opinion rendered by the Expert. At the end of the day, such an opinion given is not binding on the Court and at the best, it can only be considered to be a relevant fact”, it added.
Considering that the petitioner suffered incarceration from August 11, 2024, the contraband had already been seized from the petitioner, the investigation was already complete and the petitioner satisfied the twin requirement of Section 37 of NDPS Act, the Court granted bail to the Petitioner subject to the condition that he executes a bond for a sum of Rs10,000.
Cause Title: P.Rajkumar v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep [Case No. CRL OP(MD). No.19589 of 2024]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate K. Pragadesh Ganapathy
Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor S.Ravi
