State of Rajasthan Vs. Babu Lal
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 859 of 2004
[From the Judgment and Order dated 17.10.2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 707/2002]
[From the Judgment and Order dated 17.10.2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 707/2002]
Petitioner: State of Rajasthan
Respondent: Babu Lal
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 859 of 2004
[From the Judgment and Order dated 17.10.2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 707/2002]
[From the Judgment and Order dated 17.10.2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 707/2002]
Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat & Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 21, 2009
Appearances:
Appearances
Mr. Milind Kumar, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate for the Respondent.
Mr. Milind Kumar, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate for the Respondent.
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAWS
Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Sections 8/21, 42(2) – Huge recovery of Brown Sugar – Trial Court finding the prosecution version established – High Court finding non-compliance of Section 42(2). Held the High Court after referring to various factual aspects came to the conclusion that provisions of Section 42(2) not complied with. The documents required to prove the receipt of oral information were not brought. No interference called for.
Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Sections 8/21, 42(2) – Huge recovery of Brown Sugar – Trial Court finding the prosecution version established – High Court finding non-compliance of Section 42(2). Held the High Court after referring to various factual aspects came to the conclusion that provisions of Section 42(2) not complied with. The documents required to prove the receipt of oral information were not brought. No interference called for.
JUDGEMENT:
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. 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 referred 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. Various factual aspects have been highlighted by the High Court to come to this conclusion.
2. Learned counsel for the State submitted that some minor variations, if any, in not following 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.
3. 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.
**********
1. 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 referred 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. Various factual aspects have been highlighted by the High Court to come to this conclusion.
2. Learned counsel for the State submitted that some minor variations, if any, in not following 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.
3. 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.
**********
