| Citation | Crl.M.C. No. 5327 of 2023, 2025 SCC online Ker 20188 |
| Date of Judgement | 5 July 2023 |
| Court Name | Kerala High Court |
| Plaintiff/Appellant/Petitioner | Sheela Sunny |
| Defendant/Respondent | State of Kerala and Anr. |
| Judge | Justice Kauser Edappagath |
Introduction
This case is a compelling example of how the stringent provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), crafted to combat the drug menace can be weaponized to entrap an innocent citizen.
Sheela Sunny, a law-abiding beauty parlour owner from Kerala, was arrested in a sensationalized narcotics bust, accused of possessing LSD stamps. What followed was a disturbing unraveling of a malicious conspiracy family-driven, meticulously planned, and executed with the sole intent of framing her.
This case is a landmark in reminding the legal system that while the NDPS Act is non-compoundable, non-bailable, and imposes reverse burden of proof, its misuse can be catastrophic and must be met with legal accountability.
Facts of the case
On February 27, 2023, the Excise Circle Office, Kerala, acting on “specific information”, intercepted a scooter allegedly linked to Sheela Sunny, a 50-year-old beauty parlour owner. They claimed to have seized 0.106 grams of LSD stamps (lysergic acid diethylamide – a psychotropic substance under the NDPS Act) from the two-wheeler vehicle. Based on this seizure, a case was registered against her under the NDPS Act, particularly –
Section 8(c) – Prohibition of possession of narcotics,
Section 22(c) – Punishment for possession of commercial quantity of psychotropic substances,
Section 60(3) – Seizure of conveyance used in committing NDPS offence.
Sheela was arrested the same day and denied bail owing to the strict bail provisions under Section 37 NDPS Act. She remained in judicial custody for 72 days, despite having no prior criminal record.
A chemical analysis report from the State Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) later revealed that the so-called LSD stamps contained no narcotic or psychotropic substances. In short, the seized substance was fake.
With the forensic report contradicting the seizure narrative, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was formed to investigate a possible false implication. It was revealed that the stamps were planted to frame Sheela. The conspiracy was allegedly hatched by her daughter-in-law’s sister, Livia Jose, and one M. N. Narayana Das, a friend of Livia’s family. Their motive was to prevent Sheela from traveling abroad (possibly to the Gulf), over personal and financial disputes related to gold ornaments and money. They procured fake LSD stamps from Bengaluru, placed them in the scooter, and tipped off the Excise Department anonymously, leading to her arrest.
Based on the FSL report and emerging evidence, Sheela Sunny filed a petition before the Kerala High Court under Section 482 CrPC, seeking quashing of the FIR. The Court found no prima facie case under the NDPS Act and quashed the proceedings against her. The Court also invoked Section 58(2) NDPS Act, directing authorities to investigate the false implication and abuse of legal process.
Issue of the case
- Whether NDPS proceedings can continue when forensic analysis confirms the absence of contraband, and if quashing the FIR is warranted to prevent wrongful prosecution.
- Whether invoking stringent NDPS provisions without scientific basis amounts to abuse of power, justifying relief under Section 482 CrPC.
- Whether authorities are obligated to prosecute individuals under Section 58(2) NDPS Act for knowingly planting false evidence leading to wrongful arrest.
Judgement
The Kerala High Court, in a landmark rights-affirming decision, rendered a verdict that unequivocally reinforced the principles of justice, procedural fairness, and constitutional liberty. The Court held that the forensic examination conducted under the authority of the Assistant Excise Commissioner conclusively established that the allegedly seized LSD stamps did not contain any psychotropic or narcotic substance. In the absence of any contraband, the Court found that no prima facie case could be sustained under Sections 8(c), 22(c), or 60(3) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.
Accordingly, the High Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, allowing the petition and quashing all criminal proceedings initiated against Sheela Sunny. The prosecution, conceding to the scientific findings, made a formal submission acknowledging that Sheela’s name had been deleted from the array of accused, thereby extinguishing any legal basis for her continued prosecution.
Following fresh revelations unearthed during the preliminary inquiry, the Court permitted the addition of Livia Jose and M. N. Narayana Das as accused persons in the matter. It was revealed that these individuals had played instrumental roles in orchestrating a conspiracy to falsely implicate Sheela in a grave NDPS offence by planting counterfeit LSD stamps. Given the seriousness of the allegations and the deliberate misuse of penal provisions, the Court denied anticipatory bail to both, citing Sections 58(2) and 28 of the NDPS Act, which deal with false information leading to wrongful arrest and criminal attempt or conspiracy, respectively.
Recognizing the larger implications of the case and the need for a focused investigation, the Court ordered the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to ensure a thorough and impartial probe. Specific timelines were prescribed: the SIT was directed to complete the investigation within three months, and the trial court was instructed to conclude the trial within four months thereafter, from the date of filing of the final report.
In a significant obiter, the Court issued a legislative advisory, urging lawmakers to revisit and recalibrate Section 58(2) of the NDPS Act. It highlighted the glaring disparity between the minor penal consequences faced by those who knowingly furnish false information to law enforcement, and the draconian sentences imposed on individuals wrongfully implicated, who may otherwise face mandatory minimum imprisonment of ten years under the same statute. The Court emphasized that such disproportion undermines the deterrent value of the law and fails to provide justice to the victims of malicious prosecution.
Finally, the Court ordered that all pending proceedings in Crime No. 5/2023 be closed unconditionally, observing that no further judicial direction was necessary beyond the formal acknowledgment of Sheela Sunny’s complete and unequivocal exoneration from all charges.
Reasoning
The Kerala High Court, in its lucid and rights-conscious exposition, emphasized that possession of a narcotic or psychotropic substance is the sine qua non for invoking penal provisions under Sections 8(c) and 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Court placed particular reliance on the chemical analysis report issued by the Regional Excise Laboratory, which categorically concluded that the alleged LSD stamps seized from Sheela Sunny’s scooter did not contain any controlled or banned substance. In the absence of this foundational element, the Court declared that the statutory prerequisites to sustain prosecution under the NDPS Act were wholly unfulfilled, rendering the First Information Report (FIR) and the subsequent charges fundamentally defective and unsustainable in law.
The Bench firmly held that in the absence of the essential elements constituting the alleged offence, the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to a flagrant misuse of the judicial process and result in a grave miscarriage of justice. Realizing there was no point in letting the case drag on any further, the Court stepped in and used its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC a provision meant to stop clearly unfair or burdensome legal action in its tracks. It observed that permitting prosecution in a case where no contraband was ever recovered would neither serve the ends of justice nor advance any legitimate public interest, but would instead prolong the petitioner’s mental distress and reputational harm.
Further deepening the constitutional and criminal dimensions of the case, the Court took judicial notice of submissions placed before it, as well as interim findings from the Special Investigation Team (SIT), which indicated that Sheela Sunny may have been deliberately and maliciously framed by private individuals later identified as Livia Jose and M. N. Narayana Das. Justice Kauser Edappagath, delivering a portion of the ruling, made a pointed observation: if the seizure was instigated by persons who intentionally provided false information to law enforcement, resulting in the arrest and incarceration of an innocent citizen, then such conduct would squarely attract Section 58(2) of the NDPS Act, which criminalizes the act of knowingly furnishing false information leading to wrongful search or arrest.
In light of these disclosures, the Court instructed the Excise Crime Branch to conduct a comprehensive investigation under Section 58(2) of the NDPS Act and, upon satisfaction with the evidentiary record, to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against those responsible for fabricating evidence and misusing statutory processes. This directive reflects the Court’s firm stance against the abuse of penal legislation and reinforces its commitment to procedural fairness, legal accountability, and the integrity of the criminal justice system.
The Court acknowledged that Sheela Sunny had been put through the trauma of unjust imprisonment for a serious and socially damaging offence—despite there being no real evidence or legal grounds for her arrest. It recognized the personal cost of being caught in a system that failed to protect her when it mattered most. It noted that the psychological trauma, social alienation, and reputational devastation resulting from such baseless prosecution warranted immediate judicial intervention. Accordingly, the High Court not only quashed the proceedings but also reaffirmed the constitutional mandate under Article 21 that no individual shall be deprived of their liberty except by procedure established by law, and that such procedure must be fair, just, and not arbitrary.
Conclusion
In Sheela Sunny v. State of Kerala, the Kerala High Court delivered a seminal judgment that reaffirmed a cardinal principle of criminal law: that prosecution under the NDPS Act must rest firmly on scientific evidence and factual certainty. The Court held that, in light of the chemical analysis report conclusively establishing that the alleged LSD stamps did not contain any psychotropic substance, no prima facie case could be made out against the petitioner. The judgment not only cleared Sheela Sunny of all charges but also marked an important shift in how courts interpret and apply the NDPS Act, setting a meaningful precedent in the law’s evolving framework. It underscores the imperative for prosecutorial circumspection in invoking stringent statutory provisions and reaffirms the constitutional obligation of the judiciary to uphold individual liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The case has since come to symbolize a textbook instance of malicious prosecution—a stark reminder of how legal processes can be weaponized to devastating effect. Sheela Sunny’s unjust incarceration for 72 days illuminated deep systemic gaps in safeguarding against false implication under special criminal statutes. In response, the legal machinery has now turned toward ensuring accountability. In 2025, Livia Jose (sister of the petitioner’s daughter-in-law) and M. N. Narayana Das (a known associate of Livia’s family) were arrested as the principal conspirators. The latter’s anticipatory bail application was rejected by Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, who issued a scathing rebuke of the abuse of NDPS provisions, noting that false accusations under such laws “can ruin lives irreparably.” Subsequently, the High Court also granted the police custodial remand of Das, underscoring the need for a comprehensive investigation to uncover the full extent of the conspiracy and ensure that the justice system holds the actual wrongdoers to account.
References
- Sheela Sunny v. State of Kerala, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 20188
- https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/64a708d46657545a79eeed9a
- The Hindu https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Kochi/hc-directive-to-complete-probe-in-false-drug-case-registered-against-beauty-parlour-owner-in-three-months/article69147421.ece
- Case – 2025:KER:4895 https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/ker-false1-1685155.pdf
- The Hindu, “Fake Drug Case: Police to question key accused”
- ONmanorama, “Sheela Sunny fake drug case” (July 04, 2025)
Written by Prisha Verma, 3rd year LL.B, New Law College, Pune, an Intern under Legal Vidhya
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.
‘Social Media Head’ and ‘Case Analyst’ of Legal Vidhiya.
0 Comments