In Brief
This case involved two criminal appeals challenging a High Court's decision to reverse a trial court acquittal and convict the appellants under the Narcotic Drugs Act. The appellants alleged bias because the investigating officer was also the informant, and challenged the seizure of narcotics, claiming an unknown stranger was responsible. The Supreme Court held that mere procedural defects or investigative gaps do not constitute bias without substantive evidence of prejudicial conduct. The appellants' alternative narrative—blaming a mysterious stranger—was found to be incredible and lacking evidential support. The Court affirmed that High Courts may reverse acquittals for patent legal errors or grave miscarriage of justice, and dismissed the appeals."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.