The Calcutta High Court has refused to interfere with the acceptance of a supplementary charge sheet filed at an advanced stage of trial in a major Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) case, holding that further investigation revealing large-scale financial irregularities and allegedly illegally acquired properties justified such filing.
The bench of Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee directed the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously in view of prolonged incarceration of one of the accused.
The criminal revision was filed by Asraf Ali @ Firoj and another accused, challenging an order dated 1 September 2025 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Barhampur, accepting a supplementary charge sheet in NDPS Case No. 41 of 2022. The petitioners are facing prosecution under Sections 21(c), 22, 25, 27A, 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act, arising from a raid conducted on 1 February 2022 at Mathurapur, West Bengal.
During the raid, authorities allegedly recovered 1.7 kg of heroin, 2 kg of alprazolam, chemical substances, drug manufacturing equipment, packaging materials, communication devices and large amounts of cash. The initial charge sheet was filed in July 2022.
More than three years later, when the trial had reached an advanced stage, the investigating agency filed a supplementary charge sheet adding allegations under Sections 68F(1) and 68E of the NDPS Act, relating to illegally acquired properties and suspicious financial transactions.
The petitioners argued that filing a supplementary charge sheet at the fag end of the trial, after recording substantial evidence, amounted to a clear abuse of the process of law.
The petitioner contended that Section 173(8) CrPC permits further investigation only at a meaningful stage and not after evidence is almost complete. Proceedings under Chapter V-A of the NDPS Act (forfeiture of illegally acquired property) are independent and civil-cum-administrative in nature, and cannot be merged into criminal prosecution through a supplementary charge sheet. The alleged financial transactions were already under challenge before the competent appellate forum and initiating parallel criminal proceedings was oppressive. No formal leave of the trial court was sought or granted before conducting further investigation. The move was allegedly motivated by the fact that several prosecution witnesses had turned hostile and was aimed at delaying the trial and prolonging custody.
The department submitted that the supplementary charge sheet was based on fresh material uncovered during further investigation, particularly abnormal financial transactions exceeding ₹5.34 crore in bank accounts operated by the co-accused, who is the wife of petitioner No.1, shortly after her release on bail by the Supreme Court.
The department pointed out that cash deposits, fixed deposits and property details led to freezing orders under Section 68F(1) NDPS Act. The competent authority confirmed attachment of allegedly illegally acquired property worth over ₹31 crore. Further investigation was lawfully initiated under orders of the Special Task Force, West Bengal, and prior permission of the court was not mandatory.
The court examined the scope of Chapter V-A of the NDPS Act, reiterating that forfeiture proceedings are independent of criminal prosecution and intended to prevent drug traffickers from enjoying proceeds of crime.
The Court held that forfeiture and attachment proceedings can run parallel to criminal trials and do not prejudice the accused’s right to defend themselves. Acceptance of a supplementary charge sheet does not automatically prove the allegations; the prosecution must still establish its case during trial. Once the trial court accepted the supplementary charge sheet, the argument that no leave was taken for further investigation lost significance. The documents relied upon in the supplementary charge sheet, including bank records and freezing orders, would still be subject to scrutiny, proof and cross-examination during trial.
The Court also clarified that Chapter V-A applies only to properties having a direct nexus with income derived from contravention of the NDPS Act, and this aspect would be tested during trial.
Dismissing the criminal revision, the Calcutta High Court found no illegality or procedural impropriety in the acceptance of the supplementary charge sheet. However, considering that one of the petitioners has been in custody for nearly four years, the Court directed the trial court to conduct day-to-day hearings and conclude the trial preferably within three months.
Case Details
Case Title: Asraf Ali @ Firoj & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal
Case No.: CRR 4114 of 2025
Date: 02.02.2026
Counsel For Petitioner: Moyukh Mukherjee
Counsel For Respondent: Debasish Roy
