State, N.C.T of Delhi v. Shakil Ahmed @ Pappu (SC)
BS632587
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before:- Ranjana Prakash Desai and Madan B. Lokur, JJ.
Criminal Appeal No. 704 of 2002. D/d.
6.5.2014.
State, N.C.T of Delhi - Appellant
Versus
Shakil Ahmed @ Pappu and Anr. - Respondents
For the Appellant :- P.K. Dey, Rekha Pandey, Rohitesh S. Nagar and Anil Katiyar, Advocates.
For the Respondents :- K.V. Mohan, A.K. Yadav, Rumi Chanda and S. Mishra, Advocates.
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Sections 20 and 50 Conviction set aside by High Court on ground of non-compliance of Section 50 - State contending that Section 50 is not attracted because they handed over the bag containing charas to the officer - This contention neither raised in the trial Court nor in the High Court - Held that, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal - It would be highly improper and unjust to entertain such plea at belated stage.
[Para 3]
ORDER
Ranjana Prakash Desai, J. - The NCT of Delhi has challenged the judgment and order dated 18.2.2002 whereby the High Court of Delhi has set aside the conviction of the respondents for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('NDPS Act' for short)and imposition of sentence of 10 years and fine of L 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) each awarded by the Trial Court.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondents.
3. The High Court has set aside the conviction and sentence of the respondents, inter alia, on the ground that there is non-compliance of section 50 of the NDPS Act. We find no perversity in the impugned judgment. It is submitted by the counsel for the State that so far as respondent nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, Section 50 is not attracted at all because they handed over the bag containing charas to the officer. We find that this contention was neither raised in the trial court nor in the High Court. We are, therefore, not inclined to examine it. We are dealing with an appeal against acquittal. It would be highly improper and unjust to entertain such pleat this be lated stage. It would cause great prejudice to the respondents who had no opportunity to meet this contention. In our opinion, no case is made out for interference. Appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.