THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. versus BABU CHAKRABORTY

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 17 · Decided: 02-09-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

- ' 
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
BABU CHAKRABORTY 
SEPTEMBER 2, 2004 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
B 
Criminal Law: 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985-Sec. 21, Sec. 
8(c), 41(2), 42 (I), (2)-Non-compliance of mandatory requirements under~ 
No independent witness examined-Held, conviction not sustainable. 
Indian Penal Code 1908-Sec. 166, 167-NDPS Act, 1985-Section 
58-Conviction set aside by appellate court-Appellate Court passing 
strictures and awarding compensation to be recovered from officers-Held, 
c 
such an order without affording an opportunity of hearing-Unwarranted-
D 
Hence remarks expunged. 
Cr.P. C. Sec. 482-Inherent powers of High Court-Official act done in 
good faith-No malafides alleged-No grounds in the appeal attributing 
motive-Held order passing strictures unjustified. 
E 
On receipt of a secret information, a raid was conducted at the 
house of the respondent under the supervision of appellant nos. 2 and 
3 and other persons. A quantity of 3 gms and 25 mgms of Heroin was 
recovered. The respondent was arrested and thereafter he produced 123 
packets of heroin on his own. The seized articles were sealed and labelled. 
The respondent was charged for offences under Sec. 8(c) of the NDPS 
F 
Act. The Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced him to 
undergo RI for 10 years and imposed a fine of Rs. 1 lac, with default 
stipulation: 
On appeal, High Court acquitted the Respondent and passed several 
G 
strictures and observations against appellants 2 and 3. The High Court 
also awarded a compensation of Rs. I lac to be paid to respondent 
reserving liberty to the State Government to realise the same from 
appellant no. 2, an IPS officer. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellants contended that the said H 
17 
18 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
observations and strictures were made by the High Court without giving 
even an opportunity of being heard to the appellants to explain their 
stand; that the action taken by the appellants charging the accused for 
offence under Section 21 of the Act is justified in the given circumstances; 
that when the ingredients of Sections 41 (2), 42(1)(2), 50, 51, 52, 54, 55 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
and 57 of the Act, are complied with, the High Court is not justified in 
setting aside the trial court's judgment and releasing the accused; that 
the High Court is not justified in directing the State of West Bengal to 
pay compensation of Rs. 1 lakh to the respondent reserving liberty to 
the State Government to realis.e the same from appellant no. 2 an I.P.S. 
officer; and that the High Court has omitted to take note of the fact that 
the action taken by the officers under the Act is in good faith and is 
protected under Section 69 of the Act. 
The Respondents contended that where mandatory provisions are 
not complied with and where independent Mahazar witnesses are not 
examined the accused would be entitled to be acquitted; that as far as 
the expunging of observations is concerned, where the observations are 
part and parcel of the reasoning, the Court may decline to expunge and 
further it is not the law that absence of notice alone is a ground for 
expunging the remarks particularly when the officers have appealed to 
the Court and had an opportunity to be heard; that in 
hearing an 
appeal against the conviction, compensation can be awarded to the 
accused where ultimately he is acquitted and that this power is also 
available in the High Court since it has plenary power and there is no 
statutory bar. 
Allowing the appeal in part, the Court 
HELD : 1. The High Court was not justified in passing observations/ 
strictures against appellants 2 & 3 without affording an opportunity of 
being heard, and it is in violation of the settled law. Harsh or disparaging 
remarks are not to be made against the persons and authorities whose 
conduct comes into consideration before Courts of law unless it is really 
necessary for the decision of the case. Likewise, the directions issued by 
the High Court to the Trial Court to lodge a complaint to the Magistrate 
having jurisdiction for prosecuting appellants 2 and 3 for having 
committed an offence under Section 58 of the Act read with Sections 166 
and 167 of the Indian Penal Code is not warranted. The observations 
H 
made by the High Court are liable to be expunged. [32-C-E] 
f 
; 
·-
STATE v. BABU CHAKRABORTY 
19 
Dau/at Ram v. State of Haryana, (1996] 1

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.