Non-Preparation Of ‘Nil’ Seizure List After Searching Raiding Officer Not Fatal To NDPS Prosecution: Calcutta High Court

"When nothing objectionable is recovered from the body of the Raiding Officer and a deposition to that extent is available from the evidence of the witnesses, non-preparation of the nil seizure list is not fatal to a prosecution under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985," Calcutta High Court, in a significant judgment, has held that the failure of investigating authorities to prepare a "nil" seizure list after searching a raiding officer does not vitiate a prosecution under the NDPS Act.

A bench comprising Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Rai Chattopadhyay observed that if testimonial evidence confirms that a search was conducted and nothing was found, the procedural absence of a formal list cannot be considered fatal to the case.

The case originated from a 2013 raid conducted by the Narcotic Cell of the Kolkata Police, where the appellant, Md. Nasim, was intercepted with 7 kilograms of Charas in a rucksack. The Trial Court convicted him under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, sentencing him to 15 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,50,000. The appellant challenged this conviction before the High Court, raising procedural lapses regarding the search and the selection of witnesses.

The primary question before the Court was whether the non-preparation of a "nil" seizure list for the raiding officer’s search rendered the recovery from the accused doubtful. The Court was also called upon to determine whether an officer from the same police station could validly act as a Gazetted Officer for the search, and whether the non-examination of witnesses from the immediate vicinity of the arrest was fatal to the prosecution.

Absence Of Nil Seizure List For Raiding Officers

The Court addressed the appellant’s contention that no seizure list was prepared for the search conducted on the raiding officer, Ashadur Rahaman (PW-2), by the Gazetted Officer. The Court noted that while procedural safeguards are essential, they must be viewed in the context of the evidence recorded during the trial.

The bench observed that when witnesses depose that a search was conducted and nothing objectionable was found, the lack of a formal "nil" document does not undermine the recovery of contraband from the accused.

"This Court notices that when nothing objectionable is recovered from the body of the Raiding Officer and a deposition to that extent is available from the evidence of the witnesses, non-preparation of the nil seizure list is not fatal."

Validity Of Gazetted Officer From The Same Police Station

The appellant argued that the prosecution case was diluted because the Gazetted Officer called to the scene, Nirmal Kumar Ghosh (PW-3), was the Additional Officer-in-charge of the same police station where the raid originated. It was suggested that independent Gazetted Officers were available in the vicinity.

Rejecting this argument, the Court highlighted the practical difficulties faced by raiding parties in locating Gazetted Officers in real-time during a trap. It held that the status of the officer as a Gazetted Officer remains valid regardless of his place of posting.

"The available Gazetted Officer being contracted to function as such for the purpose of conducting the search and seizure on the appellant, cannot be faulted in these facts and circumstances of the case."

Non-Examination Of Local Shop Witnesses Not Fatal

The defense further argued that the failure to examine witnesses from "Sohana Stores," the specific shop in front of which the arrest occurred, created a gap in the prosecution’s story. The Court, however, pointed out that two other independent witnesses, who were passers-by and had no connection to the police, had already testified to the search and seizure.

The bench noted that while the deposition of a local shopkeeper might have been "desirable," its absence does not collapse the case if the existing evidence is robust. The Court emphasized that the appellant never denied carrying the rucksack containing the narcotics.

"The weight of the substance and the appellant carrying the same on his body in a Ruck Sack proves the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant has not denied carrying the Ruck Sack on his body."

Concluding that the prosecution had successfully established the recovery of a commercial quantity of narcotics, the Court found no reason to interfere with the judgment of the Trial Court. The bench dismissed the appeal and the connected applications, upholding the 15-year sentence. It further clarified that the appellant remains entitled to apply for remission before the relevant authorities as per law.

Date of Decision: 23 June 2026