State Of Rajasthan vs Babu Lal
- SCC(2009) 14 SCC 215
- Neutral2009 INSC 567
- AIRAIR 2009 SC Supp 2138
- SCR[2009] 8 SCR 42
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
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