Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus BABU LAL

Decided
21 April 2009
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2009] 8 S.C.R. 42 · 2009 INSC 567

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

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 8121 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 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 noncompliance with the requirement of Section 42(2) of the Ar.t.

pp. 42–43, margin F

2

Various factual aspects have been highlighted by the High Court to come to this conclusion.

p. 43

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.

p. 43

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. N.J. Appeal dismissed.

p. 43