Court Dismisses Petition Against Supplementary Charge Sheet, Ensures Swift Trial Completion
In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court has dismissed the petition filed by Asraf Ali @ Firoj and another, challenging the acceptance of a supplementary charge sheet filed against them under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The petitioners argued that the supplementary charge sheet was submitted at an advanced stage of trial, which they claimed constituted an abuse of the process of the court.
The case, heard by Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J., revolved around allegations against the petitioners for operating an illegal narcotics manufacturing unit. The initial raid conducted on February 1, 2022, resulted in the recovery of substantial quantities of heroin, alprazolam, and other chemical apparatus, along with cash. A charge sheet was subsequently filed on July 28, 2022, under various sections of the NDPS Act.
However, the matter took a turn when, after more than three years, a supplementary charge sheet was introduced, citing sections 68-F(1) and 68-E of the NDPS Act. This was based on findings of further investigation revealing financial irregularities and illegally acquired properties linked to the crime.
The petitioners, represented by Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee and his team of advocates, contended that such a charge sheet at the trial's conclusion stage was unjust and constituted a parallel proceeding on identical facts. They further argued that significant prosecution witnesses had turned hostile, and the supplementary charge sheet was an attempt to prejudice their defense.
The Court, however, found that the supplementary charge sheet was filed following further investigation, which discovered substantial financial transactions and illegal properties. The learned judge emphasized that the proceedings under Chapter VA of the NDPS Act are independent and can run parallel to criminal prosecution, allowing for forfeiture of properties directly linked to contraventions of the Act.
The decision also underscored that filing a supplementary charge sheet does not constitute proof of its contents, which must be established during trial. The burden of proving new allegations remains with the prosecution, while the defense retains the right to challenge and cross-examine.
While dismissing the petition, the Court directed the lower court to expedite the trial, considering the prolonged incarceration of one of the petitioners. The trial court is urged to conduct day-to-day proceedings and conclude the trial within three months.
Bottom Line:
Supplementary charge sheet in NDPS cases can be accepted at a stage nearing the conclusion of trial if it is based on further investigation revealing substantial financial irregularities and illegal properties connected to the crime.
Statutory provision(s): Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Sections 21(c), 22, 25, 27A, 28, 29, 68(A) to 68(Z), 68(F), 68(E); Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 173(8)
Asraf Ali @ Firoj v. State of West Bengal, (Calcutta) : Law Finder Doc id # 2847644
