LI Network
Published on: November 18, 2023 at 12:40 IST
The Supreme Court is set to examine the implications of a subsequent change in law as grounds for condoning delay or challenging acquittal findings.
Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol will review a special leave petition (SLP) against a Kerala High Court interim order that admitted an appeal against the acquittal of an individual charged under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS).
The High Court, while admitting the appeal, also condoned a delay of 1184 days in filing it. The acquittal was based on the precedent set in Mohanlal v. State of Punjab.
However, the Prosecution argued before the High Court that the law established in Mohanlal was overruled in Mukesh Singh v. State Narcotic Branch, Delhi. The High Court, considering the change in legal position, decided to hear the appeal on merits and condoned the delay.
The accused has appealed against this decision, contending that a subsequent change in law cannot be a valid ground for condoning the delay.
The Supreme Court, in response, issued a notice returnable in six weeks and stayed further proceedings.
The legal precedent established in Mukesh Singh clarified the role of the complainant and investigator in NDPS Act cases, overruling the earlier decision in Mohanlal.
In the present case, the accused, arrested for possessing contraband ganja, challenged the fairness of the investigation based on the Mohanlal precedent.
The Supreme Court’s deliberation on whether a change in law can impact the challenge to an acquittal will provide crucial insights into the dynamics between legal precedents and their retrospective application.
Case Details: HYDER vs. STATE OF KERALA, 2023