The Calcutta High Court ordered the Assistant Director General of Police to conduct a probe into the difference in weight between the drugs seized from the accused, and the weight recorded in the certificate issued by the magistrate under Section 52 of the NDPS Act.
Brief Facts:
The present bail application was filed by the petitioner, accused under Section 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 seeking vail under Section 439 of the CrPC on the ground that there was significant variance in the weights of the contraband between the seizure list and the certificate issued by the Judicial Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 52A of the NDPS Act.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that because of such variance and if the certificate issued by the Judicial Magistrate is taken to be sacrosanct, the quantity allegedly recovered from the joint possession together with 22 bottles of “Cefrex” Cough Syrup each containing 100 Ml. were seized at the time of interception. However, the certificate issued by the 1st Court of Judicial Magistrate, Siliguri where the entire alamat was produced indicates 190 gms. of brown sugar and 2 bottles of the said cough syrup containing 100 Ml.
Observations of the court:
The court noted that there is a stark difference in the figures of the seizure list and that in the certificate of the magistrate, and that while the seizure list revealed a commercial quantity, the magistrate's certificate said otherwise. Further the court noted that the state is unable to disclose such an alarming difference in the total weights in the absence of an instruction from the investigating officer.
The court further stated that considering the serious nature of facts and provisions contained under Section 52A of the NDPS Act the entire seized contraband should be produced before the Magistrate, an investigation is required to be made and the person found responsible therefore should be dealt with iron hand.
The decision of the Court:
The court directed the Additional Director General of Police to personally look into the matter and submit a report against the person found responsible for discrepancies so that the recurrence is completely stopped, however declined the prayer for bail considering the earlier dismissals by the court.
Case Title: In the matter of Bapi Singha and Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Harish Tandon and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Supratim Bhattacharya
Case No.: CRM (NDPS) 77 of 2024
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr Biswarup Roy and Ms. Supriya Debnath
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Tapan Bhattacharjee and Mr. Subhasish Misra
Read @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source : https://pixnio.com/free-images/science/medical-science/drug-paraphernalia-were-a-number-of-red-oblong-tablets-rows-or-lines-725x483.jpg
