Supplementary Chargesheet Filed Near Conclusion Of NDPS Trial Not Illegal If Based On Fresh Evidence: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court, bench of Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, has dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging the acceptance of a supplementary chargesheet filed at an advanced stage of trial in an NDPS case, holding that filing of a supplementary chargesheet under Section 173(8) CrPC is permissible where it is based on further investigation disclosing fresh material, even if the trial is nearing completion.
The petitioners were facing trial for offences under Sections 21(c), 22, 25, 27A, 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, arising out of a raid conducted in February 2022, during which substantial quantities of heroin, alprazolam, chemical substances, cash and manufacturing equipment were allegedly recovered. The original chargesheet was filed in July 2022.
More than three years later, and when the trial was almost at the stage of conclusion of evidence, the investigating agency filed a supplementary chargesheet incorporating offences under Sections 68F(1) and 68E of the NDPS Act, relating to allegedly illegally acquired properties and abnormal financial transactions. The trial court accepted the supplementary chargesheet, prompting the present revision.
The petitioners contended that filing of a supplementary chargesheet at the fag end of trial amounted to abuse of process. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, it was argued that further investigation cannot be permitted as a roving or fishing enquiry after evidence has substantially been recorded. It was further contended that proceedings under Chapter V-A of the NDPS Act relating to forfeiture of property are independent and civil-cum-administrative in nature, and therefore could not form the basis of a supplementary criminal chargesheet.
Opposing the plea, the State submitted that further investigation was initiated pursuant to suspicious financial transactions noticed after the release of a co-accused on bail, revealing deposits exceeding ₹5 crore in multiple bank accounts. It was argued that these transactions led to freezing of properties under Section 68F of the NDPS Act and justified further investigation culminating in the supplementary chargesheet.
The High Court, bench of Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, noted that Chapter V-A of the NDPS Act was introduced to prevent drug traffickers from enjoying the proceeds of crime and that forfeiture proceedings under the said chapter are independent and can run parallel to criminal prosecution. The Court reiterated that such proceedings are regulatory in nature and do not amount to punishment, nor do they prejudice the accused's defence in the criminal trial.
The Court held that the supplementary chargesheet in the present case was based on further investigation disclosing new material relating to financial transactions and freezing orders passed by the competent authority. Mere acceptance of the supplementary chargesheet, the Court clarified, does not amount to proof of the allegations, and the burden remains on the prosecution to establish its case during trial. The accused would retain the right to cross-examine the investigating officer and challenge the additional material.
Rejecting the argument that prior leave of the court was mandatory for further investigation, the Court held that once a supplementary chargesheet is accepted, it amounts to ratification of further investigation. The contention that proceedings under Chapter V-A are entirely alien to the criminal trial was also rejected, with the Court observing that forfeiture proceedings require establishment of nexus between the property and illicit trafficking, which may overlap with evidence led in the criminal case.
Finding no illegality or perversity in the trial court's order accepting the supplementary chargesheet, the High Court, bench of Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, dismissed the revision petition. However, considering the prolonged incarceration of one of the accused, the Court directed the trial court to conduct day-to-day trial and endeavour to conclude the proceedings within three months.
Case: Asraf Ali @ Firoj & Anr. v. State of West Bengal
Case No: CRR 4114 of 2025