CRR/2182/2024 of ZAINUL HAQUE Vs THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER on 9 September 2026

1. An affidavit of service filed by the learned counsel for the State is taken on record. It appears therefrom that the item has already been delivered to the addressees on 7th September, 2026. Despite service, none appears to represent the petitioner. The learned counsel for the State further submits that the advocate who represented the petitioner on 1st August, 2024 informed him through WhatsApp that he is no longer engaged in this case. In view of the present status of this case, I proceed for its disposal on the merits available on record.

2. It appears from the revisional application that the petitioner prays for quashing of the proceeding being N Case No. 11 of 2023 pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas, arising out of Excise, EIB, Sealdah Check Post under Barrackpore Division, including Seizure List No. 9 of 2023-24 under Sections 8(c), 21(c), and 29(1) of the NDPS Act, as well as all orders passed therein including the orders dated 19th February, 2024 and 19th April, 2024 passed by the learned Judge, NDPS Court, Barrackpore. The grounds urged are that the orders are bad in law, the charge sheet was filed upon completion of investigation, the petitioner was falsely implicated, there are no components of Sections 8(c), 21(c), and 29(1) of the NDPS Act attracted to warrant continuation of the proceeding, and such continuation amounts to an abuse of the process of law. It is further contended that the impugned orders were passed without application of judicial mind and lack reasoning, the address of the petitioner was wrongly described in the charge sheet, and the proceedings of proclamation and attachment are improper.

3. Upon perusal of the materials on record along with the impugned orders, I do not find any irregularity or impropriety in the orders impugned. The continuation of the proceeding would not amount to an abuse of the process of law in any manner. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the order impugned, as the prayer of the petitioner is devoid of merit.

4. Accordingly, the revisional application is dismissed.

5. The learned trial court is at liberty to proceed with the trial or proceedings in the case pending before him, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.

6. The interim order, if any, stands vacated.

7. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance with requisite formalities.

(Uday Kumar, J.)