AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Applicant-appellant has laid this second application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for seeking suspension of sentence handed down by Special Judge,
NDPS Cases No.1, Chittorgarh (for short, ‘learned trial Court’) vide judgment dated 20.08.2015. The learned trial Court, by the judgment
impugned, indicted applicant-appellant for offence under Section 8/18, 8/29 of the NDPS Act and handed down sentence of fifteen years rigorous
imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,50,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year rigorous imprisonment under both the counts.
The first application for suspension of sentence laid on behalf of applicant-appellant was rejected on 8th of March, 2018.
Pressing this second application for suspension of sentence, it is contended by learned counsel for the applicant-appellant that final hearing of the
appeal is unlikely in near future, therefore, solely on the basis of prolonged custody of the appellant, his application merits favourable consideration. It
is argued by learned counsel that though learned trial Court has passed sentence of 15 years rigorous imprisonment but by now appellant has already
undergone substantial part of sentence, therefore, the sentence handed down by learned trial Court may be suspended.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the application for suspension of sentence. It is contended by Mr. O.P. Rathi that huge
quantity of contraband opium was recovered from the applicant-appellant weighing 49 kg, and therefore Section 37 of the NDPS Act is clearly
attracted. Elaborating his submissions, learned counsel would urge that the contraband recovered in the matter is umpteen times higher than
commercial quantity, therefore, it would not be appropriate to grant him any indulgence.
I have bestowed my considerations to the arguments advanced at Bar.
While it is true that applicant-appellant has remained in custody for quite some time but then recovery of huge quantity of contraband opium cannot
lose sight of the Court in view of embargo envisaged under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Furthermore, he is involved in many other cases and
presently three cases are pending out of which one is for offence under Section 394 IPC, therefore also, I feel disinclined to grant indulgence to the
appellant for suspending his sentence.
However, before parting it may be observed that appellant shall be at liberty to apply for expediting final hearing of the main appeal.
In view thereof, the second application for suspension of sentence is hereby nixed subject to aforementioned observations.