KAILAS S/O BAJIRAO PAWAR versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2025] 9 S.C.R. 935 · Decided: 15-09-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MANOJ MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 9 S.C.R. 935 : 2025 INSC 1117
Kailas S/o Bajirao Pawar 
v. 
The State of Maharashtra
(Criminal Appeal No. 4041 of 2025)
15 September 2025
[Manoj Misra* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in ordering a 
re-trial; if not, then what would be the appropriate order that may 
be passed in this appeal.
Headnotes†
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – 
ss.8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) – Punishment for contravention in 
relation to cannabis plant and cannabis – Search and seizure 
operation leading to recovery of contraband-Ganja weighing 39 
kgs from the hut of the appellant-accused no. 1 and accused 
no.2 – On disclosure by two accused, complicity of accused 
no.3 came to light and on accused no.3’s arrest, complicity 
of accused no.4 came to light – Trial court relied on the 
video recording of the raid to corroborate the substantive 
evidence led during trial and convicted accused nos.1 and 2 
and acquitted the other two accused – High Court set aside 
the conviction and sentence, however, remanded the matter 
for a re-trial since the video-recording was not converted 
into admissible evidence; the chemical examiner/analyst not 
produced as a witness; non-production of remnant samples; 
and non-production of representative samples – Sustainability:
Held: Order by the High Court ordering re-trial not sustainable – 
As regards the admissibility of video recording-Compact Disc, the 
High Court opined that the video would become relevant only if it is 
played during deposition of each witness so that the witness could 
explain its contents in his own words resulting in a transcript of the 
video, is a strange and unacceptable reasoning since the CD is an 
electronic record and once the requirement of s.65B is fulfilled it 
becomes an admissible piece of evidence, and the video recorded 
therein is akin to contents of a document which can be seen and 
* Author
936
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
heard to enable the court to draw appropriate inferences – On 
facts, search and seizure operation was sought to be proved by 
oral evidence of witnesses, the video, was perhaps to corroborate 
the oral testimony – Video was played in court in the presence of 
all accused as well as both sides counsels and the presiding officer, 
upon seeing the video, could spot and confirm the presence of 
witnesses as well as the accused at the time of search and seizure, 
in such circumstances, re-trial is not required only to explain the 
video – As regards the non-production of the chemical examiner 
as a witness, no such requirement of law that Chemical Examiner 
would have to be called in each NDPS case to prove the report when 
it is otherwise admissible u/s.293(1) CrPC – Moreover, from the 
judgment of the trial court it appears that the Chemical Examiner’s 
report was admitted in evidence – Nothing in High Court’s judgment 
that any objection was raised in respect of exhibiting the Chemical 
Examiner’s report – As regards, non-production of remnant samples 
and representative samples, prima facie, there existed material to 
indicate that the seized contraband was sent in a sealed condition 
for preparation of inventory – Thereafter, inventory was prepared, 
samples were drawn and sealed; and the samples were sent to 
FSL in a sealed condition, which found the seal intact – High 
Court, however, observed that the representative sample was not 
opened before the Court at the time of recording of statement of 
the concerned witness – This was not a ground to direct for a  
re-trial when the appellate court has power to take additional 
evidence u/s.391 CrPC – Direction for restoration of appeals before 
the High Court for a fresh decision – Impugned order of the High 
Court set aside. [Paras 19, 21, 31, 33-36]
Case Law Cited
Ukha Kolhe v. State of Maharashtra [1964] 1 SCR 926 : AIR 1963 
SC 1531; Nasib Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [2021] 13 
SCR 566 : (2022) 2 SCC 89; Jitendra and Another v. State of M.P. 
[2003] Supp. 3 SCR 918 : (2004) 10 SCC 562; Ashok v. State of 
M.P. [2011] 4 SCR 253 : (2011) 5 SCC 123; Vijay Jain v. State of 
M.P. [2013] 4 SCR 293 : (2013) 14 SCC 527; Noor Aga v. State 
of Punjab [2008] 10 SCR 379 : (2008) 16 SCC 417; Union of 
India v. Jaroopram [2018] 1 SCR 618 : (2018) 4 SCC 334; Baldev 
Singh v. State of Haryana (2021) 18 SCC 523; Vijay Pandey v. 
State of U.P. [2019] 10 SCR 774 : (2019) 18 SCC 215; State of 
Rajasthan v. Sahi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.