The Additional Sessions Judge–I, Margao, Shri Ram S. Prabhu Dessai, has acquitted two accused in a high-profile narcotics case that had rocked South Goa in 2018, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
The accused were Mir Fazal Ali Farhan (25), an Indian national and computer operator from Hyderabad, Telangana, and Ahamed Kunhi B Khader (49), a resident of Kasaragod, Kerala. Both were arrested by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) at Dabolim International Airport in connection with the alleged seizure of 2 kg of charas and an attempt to export the contraband abroad.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
Farhan was charged under Sections 20(c), 23(c), 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, while Kunhi was charged under Sections 23(c), 28 and 29. According to the NCB, Farhan was intercepted at the airport and allegedly found in possession of 2 kg of hashish concealed in a bag recovered from the airport security conveyor belt. Kunhi was accused of conspiring with Farhan to export the contraband.
The prosecution examined 13 witnesses. Special Public Prosecutor P Madkaikar argued that the chain of custody was intact, mandatory NDPS provisions were followed, and the non-preparation of an inventory under Section 52A was a procedural lapse that did not vitiate the case.
However, Advocate Hegde Dessai, appearing for Farhan, contended that there was a clear violation of Section 52A as no inventory was prepared in the presence of a Magistrate. He argued that in the absence of an inventory, the prosecution failed to establish that the substance allegedly seized was the same as that sent to the Goa State Forensic Science Laboratory (GSFSL), Verna. He further submitted that conscious possession was not proved since the bag was recovered from the security belt and not from the accused, and there was no baggage tag linking it to Farhan. He also raised the possibility that identity documents found in the bag could have been planted after being obtained during a body search.
Advocate R Shirodkar, representing Kunhi, argued that the accused was implicated solely on the basis of Farhan’s statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which is inadmissible. He also pointed out that the Call Detail Records were unreliable, as the SIM card was not registered in Kunhi’s name and the registered owner was not examined.
The court held that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the contraband from seizure to analysis at GSFSL, creating serious doubts. Non-compliance with Section 52A further weakened the prosecution’s case. With no independent evidence against Kunhi and unreliable CDRs, both accused were acquitted.
