Section 27 Recovery: Wrong Application Of Law

Reversing the judgment of the Special Judge for trial of NDPS cases, Thodupuzha convicting A1 and A3 for an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for having been found in possession of 18 Kgs of ganja, the High Court of Kerala in Ramesh Vs State of Kerala 2016KHC 303, has recorded an order. Reversing the judgment of the Special Judge for trial of NDPS cases, Thodupuzha convicting A1 and A3 for an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for having been found in possession of 18 Kgs of ganja, the High Court of Kerala in Ramesh Vs State of Kerala 2016KHC 303, has recorded an order of acquittal. The reasons given by the High Court for dislodging the conviction and recording the order of acquittal are:- a) The confessional statement of A1 and A3 to PW2 is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act.. b) A1 and A3 were arrested only after the discovery of ganja in a sack placed beneath a tree.. C) Until the discovery of the ganja A1 and A3 could not be treated as persons who were accused of any offence. Approving the above declaration of law, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India in State of U.P V. Deoman Upadhyaya AIR 1960 SC 1125 observed as follows in para 7:- “For the ban to be effective the person need not have been accused of an offence when he made the confession.” See also Bheru Singh V. State of Rajasthan 2 SCC 467. d) Whether joint disclosure statement by A1 and A3 takes it out of Section 27?