Order issued
ConcludedThe Calcutta High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.
The judgment of the Calcutta High Court records the following account. On 19 July 1999 NCB officers intercepted a Kolkata man and Debashish Dutta at Central Restaurant, B.B. Ganguly Street, Calcutta; 570 grams of heroin was recovered from Dutta and nothing from a Kolkata man, though the arrest memo falsely showed recovery from him. The trial court convicted both men under Sections 21/29 NDPS Act with 10 years RI each, and a Kolkata man spent over 9 years in jail. The court held a Kolkata man was arrested groundlessly and coerced into signing a confessional statement drafted by P.W.4, that the officers acted otherwise than in good faith so Section 69 NDPS gave no protection, and that he was a victim of unlawful arrest and detention. Allowing the appeal, the court set aside the conviction and directed Rs. 1,00,000 token compensation within twelve weeks under its inherent powers, relying on Nilabati Behera, D.K. Basu and Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.
This page documents a court-adjudicated case from the judgment and cited sources below. Findings are attributed to the court; this record does not add findings of its own.
How verification works →By judgment dated 16 May 2008 in C.R.A. No. 628 of 2005, the Calcutta High Court (Coram: Girish Chandra Gupta, Kishore Kumar Prasad, JJ.) returned findings adverse to 2 police personnel, namely: Officer (P.W.4), Narcotics Control Bureau, Calcutta; Superintendent (P.W.7), Narcotics Control Bureau, Calcutta, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000).
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
The Calcutta High Court judgment dated 16 May 2008 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.
Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.
Official finding: supports allegation.
Holding not recorded separately.
“The appellant in this case was arrested groundlessly by the officers of NCB; the officers in further abuse of their power coerced the appellant to subscribe his signature to a confessional statement drafted by the P.W.4” (para 35)
The Calcutta High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.
(Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass; skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl))
Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.
Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.
These records are listed together because they share a state or a topic. That does not mean they are connected.