Informal Opinion Rendered By Expert Not Binding On Court: Madras High Court Grants Bail To Man Found In Possession Of Magic Mushrooms

The Madras High Court recently held that while considering bail applications, an informal opinion rendered by an expert was not binding on the court. It reiterated that while exercising bail jurisdiction, the court had to consider the language adopted in the enactment and only had to be prima facie satisfied whether there was a reasonable chance of conviction.Justice Anand Venkatesh made the observations while discussing a recent judgment rendered by Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy in which the latter had an informal interaction with an expert and concluded that every cell of a magic mushroom contained chemicals and that entire quantity had to be measured to determine the commercial quantity. “When the informal opinion was sought for by Hon'ble Mr.Justice D.Bharatha Chakravarthy, there was no chance for the accused person to cross-examine the Expert. The Court cannot decide the language used in the legislation and the purport of the provision of Act, based on informal opinion rendered by the Expert. At the end of the day, such an opinion given is not binding on the Court and at the best, it can only be considered to be a relevant fact,” the court said.The court reiterated that while considering the bail application, the court must prima facie satisfy itself on whether there was a reasonable chance for the accused to be held guilty. The court added that at the stage of bail, the court was not expected to meticulously examine the materials collected at the stage of investigation. The court added that while considering bail, the court had to look into the language adopted in the enactment. “At the stage of deciding the bail application by taking note of Section 37 of NDPS Act, the Court must only be satisfied on the overall circumstances and the point of law that has been raised and the Court must look at the material in a broad manner and prima facie satisfy itself that there is a reasonable chance of the accused to be held not guilty. It is not necessary for the Court to undertake a meticulous examination of the materials collected during the investigation,” the court said. The court was hearing a bail petition filed by P Rajkumar who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody for offences under Sections 8(c) and 22(c) of the NDPS Act 1985 for possessing 56 grams of Magic Mushroom. The petitioner relied upon a recent order of the court and submitted that the quantity of psilocybin present in the Magic Mushroom had to be independently assessed. He thus argued that the entire magic mushroom in his custody could not be presumed to be commercial quantity and sought for bail. The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the police had followed the mandatory requirements under the Act and seized the contraband which was in excess of 50 grams and thus considered to be commercial quantity. He added that the petitioner was convicted in a previous case in 2019 by the Special Court for EC & NDPS Act Cases. Further, arguing that the petitioner has not satisfied the twin requirements under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the APP opposed the grant of bail. Thus, noting that the court had to go by the language of the enactment and considering that the petitioner had suffered incarceration from August 2024, and the fact that the investigation had been complete and requirements of Section 37 of the Act had been satisfied, the court was inclined to grant bail and ordered accordingly. Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.K.Pragadesh Ganapathy, Advocate Counsel for Respondent: Mr.S.Ravi, Additional Public Prosecutor Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 474 Case Title: P.Rajkumar v The State Case No: CRL OP(MD). No.19589 of 2024Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment

Informal Opinion Rendered By Expert Not Binding On Court: Madras High Court Grants Bail To Man Found In Possession Of Magic Mushrooms

Upasana Sajeev

Tags