STATE OF RAJASTHANversusBABU LAL
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 567
- Decided
- 21 April 2009
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
Non‑compliance with the mandatory requirement of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act renders the conviction unsustainable, and the appeal is dismissed.
Summary
The respondent, Babu Lal, was convicted by a trial court under Section 81(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for possession of a large quantity of brown sugar. The Rajasthan High Court set aside the conviction, holding that the prosecution had failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 42(2) of the Act, namely the production of a document proving receipt of oral information. The State appealed, arguing that minor procedural lapses should not invalidate the conviction. The Supreme Court examined the High Court's findings and noted that the essential document required under Section 42(2) was not placed on record. It concluded that non‑compliance with this statutory mandate is fatal to the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s acquittal of the respondent.
Issues considered
- Whether the failure to produce the document required under Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act invalidates a conviction for possession of narcotics.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985s. 42(2), s. 81(1)
Subjects
Judgment
[2009] 8 S.C.R. 42
A ·~
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
v.
BABU LAL
(Civil Appeal No. 859 of 2004)
APRIL 21, 2009
B
[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
"'t
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, in S.B. Criminal •
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.
B
2. Various factual aspects have been highlighted by the
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.
-{
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.