False Implication In NDPS Cases Has Severe Consequences, Ruins Life: Kerala HC Urges Union To Address Inadequacy Of Sentence For False Accusations

The petitioner has approached the High Court seeking bail for providing false information to the detecting officer, which led to a woman being wrongly implicated in an NDPS case under Section 22 of the NDPS Act. This section provides imprisonment for 10 years, extendable to 20 years.

Crime was registered against the petitioner under Section 58 (2) which imposes penalty of two years imprisonment for wilfully and maliciously giving information to cause vexatious entry, search, seizure or arrest under the NDPS Act.

Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan thus directed the Registry to send the copy of this order to the Union Government.

“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 type of cases, the Parliament should think seriously about the same. Registry will forward a copy of this order to the Union of India to do the needful in accordance with law.”

As per the facts, the petitioner falsely accused a woman of committing various offences under the NDPS Act.

The petitioner is a close friend of the sister of the woman's daughter-in-law who gave false information to the detecting officer that the lady possessed contraband substance.

The petitioner is a close friend of the sister of the woman's daughter-in-law, who provided false information to the detecting officer, claiming that the woman was in possession of contraband. It is alleged that the sister of the daughter-in-law hid the contraband in her scooter with the intent of falsely implicating the woman. The detecting officer seized what appeared to be Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD) stamps from the scooter. However, subsequent chemical analysis revealed that the substance did not contain LSD.

The woman was in jail for about 72 days due to the false accusations made by the petitioner. The woman was later released from jail and case against her was quashed.

Crime was registered against the petitioner under Sections 28 (punishment for attempt to commit offence) and 58 (2) (punishment for vexatious entry, search, seizure or arrest) of the NDPS Act.

The Counsel for Petitioner submitted that contents of LSD stamps were analysed after 74 days and that it might have got evaporated. It was also submitted that if cases were lodged against informants, then people would not come forward to give information to Police and Excise. It was also stated that this was a false case registered based on media reports.

On the other hand, the Public Prosecutor submitted that State intends to constitute a special team to investigate the conspiracy angle and that bail should not be granted to petitioner.

The Court noted that the woman was accused under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act for possessing a contraband substance in commercial quantity, which carries a punishment of 10 years, extendable to 20 years. It further observed that the penalty under Section 58 for falsely implicating someone in an NDPS case is only two years. The Court stated that punishment for falsely implicating someone in NDPS case should be adequate and proportionate.

Court stated, “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. Therefore the accused in such cases should be caught immediately for investigation, if necessary, and they should be produced before the court of law for trial expeditiously, if materials are there against them to face trial. The court concerned should take such cases out of turn, and if the accused is found guilty after trial, in addition to substantive sentences as prescribed which is to be imposed on the accused, the maximum compensation possible also should be ordered to be paid by the accused to victims in accordance with law. Such a clear message should go to the society to strengthen the faith in the system.”

The Court further stated that investigation is undergoing, and it does not need to determine at this stage whether a prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner.

The Court noted that the allegations against the petitioner were very serious. It stated that investigation has to be carried in all the angles, including the conspiracy angle.

The Court thus stated that bail cannot be granted to the petitioner and investigation has to be completed within a period of three months. Further, the Court stated that the trial has to be completed within four months.

Court said, “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? I am of the considered opinion that the State Police Chief should take necessary steps to complete the investigation in this case, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The Registry will forward a copy of this order to the State Police Chief forthwith.”

The Court accordingly directed the petitioner to surrender before the investigating officer within seven days, warning that failure to do so could result in coercive action.

Case Title: M M Narayana Das v State of Kerala

Case No: BAIL APPL. NO. 4623 OF 2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 56

Click here to Read/Download Order