The Calcutta High Court has suspended the sentence of two men convicted under the NDPS Act after finding serious procedural lapses in the handling of seized contraband. The Division Bench observed that key legal safeguards were not properly followed, raising doubts over the prosecution’s case.
The order was passed in an appeal filed by Nishikanta Hawladar and Soumen Mondal, who were earlier sentenced by a special NDPS court in Nadia district.
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Denies Bail to Prayag Group Chiefs in ₹2,800 Crore Money Laundering Case
Background of the Case
The appellants were convicted on April 25, 2025, in connection with NDPS Case No. 08 of 2023. The prosecution alleged that 81.303 kg of ganja was recovered from a secret chamber of a vehicle in which the accused were travelling.
After their conviction, the accused moved the High Court seeking suspension of sentence, arguing that they had already spent nearly three years in custody and that the trial suffered from serious legal defects.
Their counsel contended that mandatory provisions under the NDPS Act were not followed, including improper sampling, violation of standing orders, and failure to prove compliance with safeguards meant to protect accused persons.
Read also:- Madras HC Slams Police Inaction in Pachaiyappa’s Trust Case, Seeks Explanation from Top Officers
Arguments Before the Court
The defence argued that:
- Only one sample was tested out of 80 packets, violating sampling rules.
- The seized packets were mixed together, which is prohibited under law.
- Mandatory safeguards under Section 50 of the NDPS Act were ignored.
- The Gazetted Officer, in whose presence the search allegedly took place, was never examined.
- Arrest memos and key documents were not properly proved during trial.
It was also argued that the prosecution failed to explain how individual packets were mixed before being produced before the Magistrate.
The State opposed the plea, claiming the recovery was from a vehicle and not from personal search, making Section 50 inapplicable. It also argued that the seizure was videographed and certified under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act.
Read also:- Advocate Should Advise Against Frivolous Litigation, Not Act as Mouthpiece: Allahabad HC
Court’s Observation
After examining the records, the Division Bench of Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray noted several inconsistencies.
The court observed that although 80 packets were allegedly recovered, the Magistrate’s inventory showed only two nylon sacks weighing 45.657 kg and 35.656 kg. There was no explanation as to when and how the packets were mixed, nor any authorization for such mixing.
“The material on record shows that the seized contraband was not handled in the manner prescribed under law,” the Bench noted.
The court also pointed out that:
- The Gazetted Officer allegedly present during the search was never examined.
- The Magistrate who certified the inventory was also not examined.
- The prosecution failed to establish proper compliance with NDPS procedures.
The Bench observed that such lapses weakened the prosecution’s case and created a strong prima facie ground in favour of the accused.
Decision of the Court
Taking note of these deficiencies, the High Court held that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not apply in this case at this stage.
The court allowed the application and suspended the sentence and fine imposed on the appellants.
Read also:- Leopard Attack or Murder? Bombay High Court Grants Bail to Key Accused in Shocking Yavat Killing Case
Both accused were granted bail on the following conditions:
- A bond of ₹10,000 each with two sureties
- One surety must be a local resident
- The accused must remain within the jurisdiction of Hogalberia Police Station
- Mandatory appearance before police once every fortnight
- No travel outside Nadia district without court permission
“The appellants have been able to make out an arguable case in their favour,” the Bench observed while granting relief.
The court clarified that all observations were prima facie in nature and would not affect the final hearing of the appeal.
Case Title: Nishikanta Hawladar & Anr. vs State of West Bengal
Case No.: CRA (DB) 280 of 2025
Decision Date: 22 January 2026
