[2009] 8 S.C.R. 42
A
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
·~
v.
BABU LAL
(Civil Appeal No. 859 of 2004)
B
APRIL 21, 2009
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
GANGULY, JJ.]
~
Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
c - s.42(2) - Compliance of mandatory requirement under -
Possession of huge quantity of brown sugar - Conviction u/
s. 8111 - Set aside by High Court for non-compliance of
requirement u/s. 42(2) - Interference with - Held: Not called
for - High Court referred to various factual aspects to come
D to the said conclusion - Document required to prove receipt
.,,
of oral information not brought on record.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 859 of 2004.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.10.2003 the High
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, in S.B. Criminal
"'t
•
Appeal No. 70712002.
Milind Kumar, Advocate for the Appellant.
r
F
Ashok Kmar Singh, Advocate for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1: Challenge in this appeal is
G 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 8121 of the
Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
(hereinafter refeerred to as 'the Act'). The respondent was found
H
42
&----
,.___
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. BABU LAL
43
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
"
in possession of a huge quantity of Brown Sugar and the Trial A
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 Ar.t.
2. Various factual aspects have been highlighted by the B
High Court to come to this conclusion.
)
3. 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 c
respondent on the other hand supported the judgment of the
High Court.
4. We find that the High Court after referring to the various
.,.,
factual aspects came to the conclusion that provisions of D
•
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.
'
E
N.J.
Appeal dismissed.
-{
Lex