(1.) The petitioner herein is the 2nd accused in S.C. No.517/2022 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur. In the aforesaid case, he is accused of having committed the offences punishable under Sec. 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity, "the Act"). The challenge in this petition is mounted against the order dtd. 5/4/2023 in Crl. M.P.No. 629/2023, by which the application filed by the learned Public Prosecutor to produce and mark the photocopy of a document was allowed.
(2.) Before delving into the merit of the order impugned, short facts which led to the passing of the order are required to be stated: The prosecution allegation is that the petitioner was acting as the caretaker of the house owned by a certain Vincent. The allegation is that the 1st accused, for the purpose of sale, procured 27.530 kg of Ganja from Tamil Nadu, and the same was entrusted to the petitioner. The petitioner is alleged to have kept the contraband on the Veranda of the house. Based on source information, a search was conducted, and the contraband articles were allegedly seized.
(3.) Trial commenced, and during the fag end of examination of the detecting officer, who was being examined as PW1, an application was filed by the prosecution to produce a photocopy of the document prepared by the investigating officer at the time of conducting the search of the house. The said document disclosed that the detecting officer had informed the accused in writing that he had the right to insist on the presence of a Judicial Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer to witness the search. The petitioner answered in the affirmative, and his signature was collected. However, the said document was not produced along with the final report. The application was filed purportedly under Sec. 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act, stating that the original of the record is lost and requesting that the prosecution be permitted to place on evidence a true photocopy of the same.