Amit Talukdar, J. - (1.) Questions that have fallen for consideration in these appeals have strictly been taken care of the statute itself. That is how those are to be disposed.
(2.) At the Bar it has been submitted that as the amount of the HEROIN (Mat. Exts. I, II and III) falls within the category of small quantity the conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court in respect of the charge of section 27A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) was not maintainable. Further it has been canvassed that the evidence on record does not fulfill the ingredient of the charge of section 27A of the said Act as there is no material either with regard to harbouring of any offender or financing any business in respect of narcotic drugs.
(3.) Shri Pradeep Kumar Roy, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the appellants Utpal Deb and Paritosh Debnath (for short, A1 and A2 respectively) in C. R. A. No. 424 of 2002 further submitted that the provisions of section 52A of the said Act was also not complied with as no inventory were prepared and as the provisions of section 42 sub-clause (2) of the said Act also, stood in breach as there was previous information taken down in writing by P.W.I the same was not sent to the superior officer and the articles not being produced before the Court. Section 52,sub-section (2) of the said Act was also not complied with.;