Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2004 (9) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (9) TMI 606 - SUPREME COURTWhether High Court was correct to set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by Additional Sessions in Sessions trial No. 29 of 1990 convicting the respondent-herein, Babu Chakraborthy, under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentencing him for rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and pay a fine of Rs. l lakh in default of which one more year of imprisonment is to be undergone? Held that:- The impugned judgment directing the State Government to pay Rs. l lakh as compensation to the accused caused a great prejudice to the State. There was no ground for coming to such conclusion. In this regard, the High Court also has omitted to take note of the fact that the action taken under the Act in good faith is protected under Section 69 of the Act. The judgment of the High Court passing strictures against the professionals/ officials amounts to condemning the affected parties without being heard. In paragraph supra, we have already discussed about the non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Act by the appellants 2-3. Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court cannot be characterized as perverse judgment warranting interference in appeal by this Court. Hence, we are of the opinion that no compensation can be awarded to the accused in the facts and circumstances of this case. We, therefore, allow the appeal in part and set aside that part of the impugned judgment ordering compensation to the accused and also the direction to launch prosecution against PW 2 and PW 4 (2nd appellant) under Section 58 of the NDPS Act. Appeal pertly allowed.
|