Miss Lucy
← All judgments

State Of Rajasthan vs Babu Lal

Supreme Court21 April 2009Asok Kumar Ganguly · Arijit Pasayat

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Non-compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 42(2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985—specifically, the failure to produce on record documents required to establish the receipt of oral information—is a material defect that vitiates a conviction for possession of narcotic drugs, and is not curable by minor variations or deviations in procedure.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 859 OF 2004

State of Rajasthan ... Appellant(s)

Versus

Babu Lal ... Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

Dr.ARIJIT PASAYAT,J.

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of acquittal passed by a

learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Bench. The respondent

was convicted for offence punishable under Section 8/21 of the Narcotics Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter refeerred to as 'the Act'). The

respondent was found in possession of a huge quantity of Brown Sugar and the Trial

Court held that all the requisite procedure was followed and, therefore, according to

the Trial Court, the prosecution version was established. The High Court found that

there was non-compliance with the requirement of Section 42(2) of the Act.

-2-

Various factual aspects have been highlighted by the High Court to come to this

conclusion.

Learned counsel for the State submitted that some minor variations, if

any, in not following the the procedure would not render the conviction bad. The

learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the judgment of the

High Court.

We find that the High Court after referring to the various factual aspects

came to the conclusion that provisions of Section 42(2) were not complied with. The

documents required to prove the receipt of oral information were not brought on

record. That being so, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the High

Court. The appeal fails and it is dismissed accordingly.

...................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

....................J. ((ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

New Delhi, April 21, 2009.

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free