Murari Sardar vs Unknown
2021 Latest Caselaw 5592 Cal

8 27.10.2021 ns / RP Court No.8 C.R.M. 5965 of 2021

In Re : An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with Gopalnagar P.S. Case No.389 / 2021 dated 15.07.2021 under sections 21(c ) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

And

In the matter of : Murari Sardar

...Petitioner.

Mr. Rajdeep Majumdar, Mr. Arushi Rathore ...for Petitioner.

Mr. Sanjay Bardhan, Ms. Baisakhi Chatterjee ...for State.

The petitioner contends that the seizure list did not

contain any signature of any independent witness as required under

Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The only two

signatories as apparent from the seizure list itself, are both police

officers in the seizure team.

It is further contended, by placing reliance on a

coordinate Bench judgment delivered on August 10, 2018 in C.R.M.

5708 of 2018 (In Re: Ansar Ali) that the seizure list, if not signed

by the independent witness, in the absence of any explanation as to

why the immediate neighbours or available witness declined to sign,

is unlawful.

Learned counsel for the State controverts such

submissions and contends that the facts of the cited judgment were

different and places particular reliance on the contents of pages 3

and 4 of the said judgment to indicate that in view of non-rebuttal

of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, even prima facie, no bail ought to

be granted to the petitioner at this juncture.

It is seen from the cited judgment that the coordinate

Bench placed reliance on D. K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal

(AIR 1997 SC 610) which pertained to signature on the arrest

memo whereas the present case concerns a seizure list.

Although the signature of the accused is found on the

seizure list in the present case, there is no independent witness who

has signed the same and / or no plausible explanation as to why

there is no such signature of the independent witness. However,

since learned counsel for the State seeks to place reliance on other

coordinate Bench judgments on the proposition that the seizure list

cannot be vitiated merely due to absence of signature of other

independent persons, we deem it fit to adjourn the case till

tomorrow to enable learned counsel for the State to cite such

judgments. Accordingly, the matter is adjourned for the day and

shall be listed tomorrow for further hearing before the appropriate

Bench.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)

(Rabindranath Samanta, J.)