SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

ISSUE 1. THAT THE PRESENT REVISION PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE.

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that as a broad proposition Revisional
Interference may be justified where: [i] the decision is grossly erroneous, [ii] there is no
compliance with the provisions of law, [iii] the finding of the fact affecting the decision is not
based on evidence, [iv] material evidence of the parties is not considered and [v] judicial
discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely.

ISSUE 1.1. That the Lower Court Had the Jurisdiction to Decide on the Present Matter.
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the section 36(A)(1)(a) of the
Narcotics and Psychotropic Drugs Act, 1985 says that the offences under which the punishment
exceeds more than 3 years will be triable by the Special Court constituted under section 36 of the
same Act and also section 41 of the same Act authorizes the Magistrate of the first Class to issue
a warrant for the arrest of any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed offence
punishable under the NDPS Act.

Issue 1.2 That Lower Court was justified in dropping the charges against the accused.
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the accused was suffering from by the
time he was indicted, Camargo was in an advanced stage of AIDS and related complicating
illnesses. His doctors’ prognosis was death within three to four months. The lower court dropped
the charges and was justified in doing so because [A] Article 21 of the Constitution [B]
Humanitarian Ground [C] The Magistrate considers no sufficient ground for proceeding against
the accused.

Issue 1.3 The present Revision Petition does not comply with the Section 397 of Cr.P.C.
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that as a broad proposition Revisional
Interference may be justified where: [i] the decision is grossly erroneous, [ii] there is no
compliance with the provisions of law, [iii] the finding of the fact affecting the decision is not
based on evidence, [iv] material evidence of the parties is not considered and [v] judicial
discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely.