Kerala High Court
Shabna Manoj vs State Of Kerala on 6 March, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2026:KER:20576
CRL.MC NO. 2086 OF 2026
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 2086 OF 2026
CRIME NO.36/2021 OF Ernakulam Excise Range Office, Ernakulam
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.03.2026 IN CRMP 4/2026 IN SC
NO.378 OF 2022 OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT/RENT CONTROL
APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED
02.03.2026 IN CRMP 5/2026 IN SC NO.378 OF 2022 OF I ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT COURT/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5:
SHABNA MANOJ
AGED 21 YEARS
D/O. MANOJ, THIRUVONAM HOUSE, KOLATHARA, KAMBOORATH
PARAMBU DESOM, CHERUVANNOOR VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE TALUK,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN - 673655
BY ADV SRI.NIREESH MATHEW
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT-STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI., PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
2026:KER:20576
CRL.MC NO. 2086 OF 2026
2
PP SRI M P PRASANTH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.03.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:20576
CRL.MC NO. 2086 OF 2026
3
Dated this the 6th day of March, 2026
ORDER
The petitioner is the 5th accused in S.C No. 378/2022 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ernakulam (for brevity, 'Trial Court'), which has originated from Crime No.36/2021 registered by the Ernakulam Excise Range Office, as against 26 accused persons, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 22(c), 25, 27A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
2. The grievance projected by the petitioner in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case is that, the accused 1, 2, 4 and 6 (collectively referred to as "above mentioned accused persons") in the above crime had filed applications to issue summons to an expert (DW1) in advanced facial recognition technology, who has the expertise and experience in accurately identifying individuals from images and video 2026:KER:20576 CRL.MC NO. 2086 OF 2026 4 footages using advanced face recognition algorithms, and who was examined as a witness in a case of identical nature, and to direct the PWs 1 and 8 in the above case (detecting officer and the gazetted officer in the above crime) to produce their photographs for the purpose of conducting their facial identification. The above applications were necessitated because Ext.P147, the hard disk of the closed- circuit television of Marhaba apartments, and Ext.P214, the pen drive of the copied images from Ext.P147, were marked in evidence through PW80, to establish that the accused persons were at the scene of occurrence at 11 p.m. on 26.08.2021. The above-mentioned accused persons had raised a defence that, as per the video footages in Ext.P147, PWs1 and 8 were at the scene of occurrence at 9 p.m., which discredits the entire prosecution case. Though the applications were dismissed by the Trial Court, by Annexure 1 order, this Court set aside the order and allowed 2026:KER:20576 CRL.MC NO. 2086 OF 2026 5 the applications by ordering summons to the expert witness and directing PWs1 and 8 to either appear in person or produce their photographs. Consequent to the said order, the expert witness and PW8 appeared before the Trial Court. However, the expert witness testified that she needed the photographs of the persons in order to identify the witnesses using the facial recognition technology. Nonetheless, PW1 neither appeared in person nor produced his photograph. Subsequently, the above-mentioned accused persons filed Crl.M.P. No. 1/2026, inter-alia, to to direct PWs1 and 8 to produce their photographs, but the said application was dismissed. Although the said order was challenged before this Court in Crl.M.C No.1129/2026, by Annexure 3 order, the case was dismissed as withdrawn, but by reserving the right of the above-mentioned accused persons to work out their remedies in accordance with law. The above-mentioned accused persons subsequently 2026:KER:20576 CRL.MC NO. 2086 OF 2026 6 filed Crl.M.P.No.3/2026, to direct PWs1 and 8 to produce their photographs or the alternative for the Trial Court to view the CCTV footages and identify the presence of PWs1 and 8 at least at the instances narrated in the application. But, by Annexure 4 order, the Trial Court dismissed the said application. After the passing of Annexure 4 order, the petitioner filed Annexures 5 and 6 applications to re-open the defence evidence, to recall DW1, directing her to produce the report of the CCTV visuals by analysing the photo specimen of PWs1 and 8, to direct the prosecution to produce the photographs of PWs1 and 8, to forward the CCTV footage and specimen photographs of PWs1 and 8 to DW1 for examination by using facial recognition tools, to analysis the timestamps and submit a report. Nonetheless, by Annexure 7 common order, the Trial Court has dismissed the said applications, on the ground that the petitioner's intention is only to protract the 2026:KER:20576 CRL.MC NO. 2086 OF 2026 7 final determination of the case. Annexure 7 common order is ex facie erroneous and unsustainable in law.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The above-mentioned persons had sought for an identical relief as prayed for in Annexures 5 and 6 applications, which was initially dismissed by the Trial Court, but the application was partially allowed by this Court, by Annexure 1 order, in the following manner:
"(i) Annexure 1 order is set aside.
(ii) Crl.M.P Nos.5267 and 5268/2025 are allowed by ordering summons to the expert witness to appear and adduce evidence, and PWs 1 and 8 to either appear in person on the date the expert witness appears or produce their photographs as required by the expert witness.
(iii). Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I extend the time period fixed by this Court to dispose of S.C.No.378/2022 by a further period of three months from the date the Presiding Officer takes charge of the Trial Court."
5. Subsequent to the above order, the expert witness and PW8 appeared before the Trial Court. However, the expert witness testified that she could not 2026:KER:20576 CRL.MC NO. 2086 OF 2026 8 identify PW8 in person; instead, she required the photograph of PW8 to use the facial recognition technology. It is pertinent to note that, although a summons was issued to PW1, he did not appear in person or produce his photograph. The Trial Court did not pursue the matter against PW1. It is after that the above-mentioned accused persons filed Crl.M.P. No. 1/2026, to reopen the evidence and to direct PWs 1 and 8 to produce their full-length and passport-size photographs. However, the Trial Court dismissed the application. Assailing the said order, the above-mentioned accused persons filed Crl.M.C. No.1129/2026 before this Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn by the Annexure 3 order, but by reserving the right of the above-mentioned accused persons to work out their remedies in accordance with law. After the above order, the above-mentioned accused persons filed Crl.M.P. No.3/2026, which was also dismissed by the Trial Court by 2026:KER:20576 CRL.MC NO. 2086 OF 2026 9 Annexure 4 order. The said order has not been challenged by the above-mentioned accused persons. But, then immediately, the petitioner filed Annexures 5 and 6 applications for identical reliefs as sought by the above mentioned accused persons, which was dismissed and the order is challenged in this Crl.M.C.
6. It is to be observed that the petitioner has adopted a wait-and-watch policy. She did not join with the above- mentioned accused persons to either file the earlier applications or challenge the orders. It is after the above- mentioned accused persons have suffered the above orders, which in turn have attained finality, that the petitioner has chosen to file the present applications for an identical relief. The findings in the orders passed on Crl.M.P Nos.1/2026 and 3/2026 operate as against all the accused persons. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to re-agitate the matter by filing fresh applications for an 2026:KER:20576 CRL.MC NO. 2086 OF 2026 10 identical relief. Hence, I do not find any error or illegality in Annexure 7 order. Nonetheless, the Trial Court shall bear in mind that PW1 has not appeared in person or produced his photograph as directed by this Court in Annexure 1 order, which necessarily would draw adverse inference against him. Furthermore, the Trial Court shall also keep in mind that in Crl.M.P. No. 3/2026, the above-mentioned accused persons had sought for an alternative relief that the Court may view the CCTV footage and identify the presence of Pws 1 and 8 at least at the instance mentioned in the application.
With the above observations, the Crl. M.C is dismissed.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE rmm/06/03/2026 2026:KER:20576 CRL.MC NO. 2086 OF 2026 11 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 2086 OF 2026 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 28.11.2025 IN CRL.M.C. NO.10804/2025 Annexure 2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF DW1 IN SC 378/2022 ON THE FILES OF THE IST ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM.
Annexure 3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 10.02.2026 IN CRL.M.C. NO. 1129/2026 Annexure 4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.MP.NO.3/2026 IN S.C NO. 378/2022 DATED 17.02.2026 PASSED BY THE IST ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM Annexure 5 TRUE COPY OF PETITION, CRL.M.P. NO.4/2026 IN SC 378/2022 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 24.02.2026 (WITHOUT ANNEXURES) Annexure 6 TRUE COPY OF PETITION, CRL.M.P. NO. 5/2026 IN SC 378/2022, ON THE FILES OF 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION COURT DATED 24.02.2026 (WITHOUT NNEXURES) Annexure 7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 02.03.2026 IN CRL.M.P.NO.4/2026 AND CRL.MP.NO.5/2026 BY 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM.