ASRAF ALI @ FIROJ Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners herein have assailed the order dtd. 1/9/2025 passed in NDPS Case no. 41 of 2022 by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Barhampur, 2nd court. Petitioners have been arrayed for commission of alleged offences under Sec. 21(c) /22/25/27A/28/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in Short NDPS Act.) By the impugned order learned court below has accepted supplementary charge-sheet filed by the investigating agency against the petitioners at the stage, when the case was posted for hearing argument.

(2.) Prosecution case against the petitioners is that acting on a reliable source input, about an illegal narcotics manufacturing unit at Mathurapur, the authority conducted a raid on 1/2/2022 with the assistance of local police and in the presence of public witnesses and gazetted officer. Upon searching the premises, the said authority recovered Heroine (1.7Kg), Alprazolam (2Kg), Sodium Carbonate Anhydrous (10Kg.) huge cash amount and other chemical apparatus used in drug manufacturing and packaging materials and communication devices. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed on 28/7/2022 under the above mentioned Sec. of the NDPS Act, Subsequently on 12/8/2025 i.e. after more than 3 years, when the trial is almost on the verge of completion, a supplementary charge sheet has been filed, adding new Sec. like 68-F(1) and Sec. 68E of the NDPS Act, alleging some properties as illegally acquired properties and further alleging that the petitioner Asraf Ali has a criminal antecedent and he has allegedly confessed during interrogation that a heroin manufacturing and distribution unit was running by him and he used to export finished product to Bangladesh via Lalgola border. Be it mentioned that the petitioner no. 1 is in custody nearly for four years and petitioner no. 2 is on bail.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the said proceeding Mr. Mayukh Mukherjee learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that Sec. 173(8) of the Cr.P.C, no doubt allowed further investigation and filing of a supplementary charge sheet. However this is only permissible so long as the investigation is still within a meaningful stage and before the trial is concluded. Filing a supplementary charge sheet at the fag end of the trial especially after conclusion of recording evidence is clear abuse of the process of the Court. Relying upon judgment of K. Vadival vs. K. Santhi and other, 2024 SCC Online SC 2643 he contended that further investigation is permissible only if there is new material but fishing expeditions or speculative roving enquires can not be permitted at the concluding stages of trial. It can not be permitted simply to dig up witness of evidence that the applicant could have produced earlier nor can it be used as a device to cause delay.