NDPS Act: Calcutta High Court Suspends Conviction After Raiding Officer Mixed Seized Contraband Packets During Inventory
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Calcutta, Division Bench of Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray, on Thursday, January 22, 2026, suspended the sentence arising from the conviction of two men under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and directed their release on bail, pending further orders, subject to conditions. The case stems from a vehicle search in which police claimed to have recovered 80 packets of ganja weighing about 81 kg but produced the material for inventory as two nylon sacks after mixing the packets. The Bench noted, “There is no material to show when and how the said 80 packets were mixed up and who ordered for such mixture,” adding that the law does not authorise such mixing by the raiding or inventory officer.
The prosecution case was that a substantial quantity of contraband was recovered from a concealed chamber of the vehicle during a raid, following which seizure, sampling, inventory, and forensic examination were undertaken.
Before the appellate court, the appellants contended that they had remained in custody for over two years and had no prior criminal antecedents. They argued that statutory safeguards were not followed during search and seizure, including alleged non-compliance with procedural requirements relating to sampling, sealing, and inventory. It was also contended that multiple seized packets were mixed before certification and that key witnesses connected with the search and certification process were not examined.
The State opposed the application, asserting that the recovery was from the vehicle and not from the person of the accused, that search and seizure were conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer, and that the trial court had adequately addressed all objections raised during trial. The appellate court considered these rival submissions while examining whether the sentence deserved to be suspended pending disposal of the appeal.
The Court recorded that “apparently 81.303 Kgs. of Ganja was recovered from the vehicle where the accused were on board” and that the “search and seizure was videographed and was conducted before a Gazetted Officer.” It further noted that certification under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act had been issued by a Judicial Magistrate.
Upon examining the record, the Court observed that although “80 packets of contraband articles were recovered during the raid,” only “24 grams of seized contraband was sent to forensic examination.” Referring to the inventory certificate, the Court recorded that the Magistrate noted weighing of bulk substances contained in two nylon sacks and that samples were drawn from those sacks.
The Bench found that “although 80 packets of contraband were recovered during the raid, the said contraband in 80 packets were mixed up and were taken to the learned Judicial Magistrate for inventory and also for certification purposes.” It was observed that “the Magistrate did not report that she saw 80 packets in two big nylon sacks.”
The Court further stated that “there is no material to show when and how the said 80 packets were mixed up and who ordered for such mixture.” It recorded that “the Law does not allow the seizing or the Officer making inventory to mix up the seized contrabands.”
With respect to witnesses, the Court observed that although the search was claimed to have been conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer, “the said Gazetted Officer was not examined as a witness nor his presence in the spot can be ascertained from other reliable documents.” The Court also recorded that “the Judicial Magistrate who issued the certificate under Section 52-A was not made a witness for reasons best known to the IO.”
In view of these aspects, the Court concluded that “the prosecution is unable to show that the said 80 packets seized by them during raid were properly classified weighed and sampled,” and therefore “the appellants have been able to make out an arguable case in their favour.”
The Court directed that “CRAN 2 of 2025 is allowed. The order of sentence of conviction dated 25.04.2025 passed by the Learned Judge, Special Court, NDPS Act, Nadia, Krishnanagar in NDPS case no. 08 of 2023 and payment of fine shall remain suspended until further order.” The appellants “may find bail of Rs. 10,000/- each with two sureties of Rs. 5,000/- each and out of which one must be local subject to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadia at Krishnanagar.”
The Court imposed conditions that “the petitioners shall remain within the jurisdiction of Hogalberia Police Station, Nadia and shall meet the I.C., Hogalberia Police Station once in a fortnight and shall not leave the geographical limits of District Nadia without the permission of the learned Trial Court, excepting for the purpose of attending the hearing of the appeal.”
“They shall appear or be represented in the hearing of the appeal on each and every date and failing which the bail granted to them shall be stood cancelled without any further reference to this Court. All observations made in this order are prima facie and only for the purpose of deciding the present application.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Abu Zar Ali, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mrs. Anasuya Sinha, Learned A.P.P.; Mr. Ranadeb Sengupta, Advocate; Mr. Karan Bapuli, Advocate
Case Title: Nishikanta Hawladar & Anr. v. State of West Bengal
Case Number: CRA (DB) 280 of 2025 with CRAN 2 of 2025
Bench: Justice Arijit Banerjee, Justice Apurba Sinha Ray
