In Brief
The Supreme Court examined whether a High Court rightly quashed criminal proceedings for alleged tampering with evidence in a narcotics case. In 1990, drug evidence was recovered from an Australian national. The evidence (an underwear marked Mo2) was released from court custody and later altered before being resubmitted as evidence, leading to wrongful conviction. When a case was filed against the lawyer who facilitated this, the High Court quashed it citing procedural bar under Section 195 CrPC. The Court held that when a High Court exercises superintendence to direct investigation into serious judicial process violations, the statutory bar does not apply. The Court also recognized locus standi of a third party with genuine interest in preserving judicial integrity. The proceedings were restored for trial within one year.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.