Basic Duty Of Raiding Officers To Make Separate Arrangements For Seized Contraband Items: Calcutta High Court Suspends NDPS Conviction
The appeal before the Calcutta High Court was filed by the two appellants seeking suspension of the sentence of conviction passed by the Special Court in an NDPS case.
Justice Apurba Sinha Ray, Justice Arijit Banerjee, Calcutta HC
While suspending an order of conviction passed under the NDPS Act, the Calcutta High Court has held that it is the basic duty of the Raiding Officers/Officers making inventory to classify and make separate arrangements for seized contraband items.
The appeal before the High Court was filed by the two appellants seeking suspension of sentence of conviction passed by the Special Court in an NDPS case.
The Division Bench of Justice Apurba Sinha Ray and Justice Arijit Banerjee held, “The Magistrate did not report that she saw 80 packets in two big nylon sacks. There is no material to show when and how the said 80 packets were mixed up and who ordered for such mixture. This goes against basic duties of the Raiding Officers/Officers making inventory to classify and make separate arrangements for seized contraband items. The Law does not allow the seizing or the Officer making inventory to mix up the seized contrabands. It appears that 80 packets of contraband articles were not produced and instead of said packets only two nylon sacks were produced and one of which contained 45.657 Kgs. and another contained 35.656 Kgs. totalling 81.313 Kgs.”
Advocate Abu Zar Ali represented the Appellants while Additional Public Prosecutor Anasuya Sinha represented the State.
Factual Background
A recovery of 81.303 kgs of Ganja was made from the vehicle where the accused were on board. The search and seizure was videographed and was conducted before a Gazetted Officer. The report confirmed the presence of contraband substances. Certification in terms of Section 52-A of NDPS Act was issued by the Judicial Magistrate. The tower location of the first appellant indicated that he was coming from Odisha.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that 80 packets of contraband articles were recovered, and only 24 grams of seized contraband were sent to forensic examination. The Bench further found that the said contraband in 80 packets was mixed up and taken to the Judicial Magistrate for inventory and certification purposes. The Bench noticed that 80 packets of contraband articles were not produced, and instead, only two nylon sacks were produced. One of those contained 45.657 kgs and another contained 35.656 kgs, thereby totalling 81.313 kgs.
The body of the appellants and the vehicle were searched in the presence of the Gazetted Officer; however, the said Officer was not examined as a witness, nor his presence at the spot could be ascertained from other reliable documents.
“It is also found from the record that the Judicial Magistrate who issued the certificate under Section 52-A was not made a witness for reasons best known to the IO. It is also found from the record that the Gazetted Officer, Avijit Biswas was not produced during trial. Therefore, as the prosecution is unable to show that the said 80 packets seized by them during raid were properly classified weighed and sampled and as the said drugs appear to have been mixed up without the order of the competent authority, we find that the appellants have been able to make out an arguable case in their favour”, it held.
The Bench thus suspended the order of sentence of conviction and payment of fine until further orders.
Cause Title: Nishikanta Hawladar & Soumen Mondal v. The State of West Bengal (Case No.:CRA (DB) 280 OF 2025)
Appearance
Appellant: Advocate Abu Zar Ali
State: Additional Public Prosecutor Anasuya Sinha, Advocates Ranadeb Sengupta, Karan Bapuli