AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pushpendra Yadav, J
Heard on I.A.No.1197 of 2026 under Section 430 of BNSS/389 of the Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant.
Appellant has been convicted under Section 27 (A) of NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo 10 years RI with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- with usual default stipulations.
Learned counsel for appellant submitted that appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the crime. Learned trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant without appreciating the evidence in right perspective. The appellant has already suffered near about 18 months incarceration as pre and post trial confinement. The appellant was not owner of the vehicle and was not aware with the incident of carrying contraband in vehicle. Independent witnesses have turned hostile and treating owner of the vehicle, he has been roped in the matter on the basis of the memo recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act, which is not admissible in evidence. Whereas, the vehicle involved in the case was not registered in the name of appellant. There is a strong case in favour of the appellant. Looking to old pendency of the cases for consideration, final conclusion of this appeal would take sufficiently long time. Hence, the execution of the remaining part of the jail sentence of the appellant be suspended till the final disposal of this appeal.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State drew attention of this Court to Para-45 of the impugned judgment whereby the Court below has appreciated the evidence of Sanjay Sharma (PW-9) and found that said witness has stated in his statement that he knows the appellant because appellant has bought the offending vehicle from him on December 2019 and NOC has also been issued in appellant's favour. Form-28 was prepared regarding sale of vehicle and copy of which are Exhibit P-52 and P-53 and sale letter formats Ex.P-29 and P-30 were given to Sanjay Vanshkar. Thus, he opposed the application for suspension of sentence and prayed for its rejection.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking note of the fact that as per the record of RTO concerned and other documents, the appellant was the owner of the said vehicle. The report regarding seized contraband is found to be positive and the statements of prosecution witness are well supported by the documentary evidence. His earlier application was dismissed on merit vide order dated 27.09.2025 and there is no change in circumstances therefore, this court is not inclined to grant benefit of suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant at this stage.
Accordingly, I.A.No.1197/2026 is dismissed.
Certified copy as per rules.