Chattisgarh High Court
Raju Ram Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 August, 2021
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 1616 of 2019
• Raju Ram Sahu S/o Salikram Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Kudhurtaal, Thana -
Lalpur, District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Lalpur, District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
24.08.2021 Mr. Shailendra Dubey, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. Lalit Jangde, Deputy Government Advocate for the Respondent/
State.
Heard on IA No.01/2021, application for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail.
The Appellant stands convicted under Section 20B (ii) (C) of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12 years and to pay fine amount
Rs.1,25,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 3 years
vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.05.2019 passed
in Special Criminal Case No.9/2018 by the learned Special Judge (NDPS)
Mungeli, District - Mungeli (C.G.).
The learned counsel for the Appellant would argue that in the present
case the conviction for commercial quantity has been ordered without there
being any legally admissible evidence on record that except the packets from
which samples were drawn, the other articles which were kept in other
packets were also narcotic. He would submit that in the matter of drawal of
sample, the provision contained in 1/88 of standing instructions as referred to
in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs.
Balmukund, 2009 Cr.L.R. (SC) 590 has been violated. He would submit that
the consequence of non-mixing of the quantity before drawing sample has
also been considered to be fatal in the case of Gaunter Edwin Kircher v.
State of Goa, AIR 1993 SC 1456. Therefore, in the present case the samples
having been drawn only from two packets, each containing 1 kg., the
conviction of the appellant could not be ordered in respect of any quantity
more than 2 kgs. The appellant by now has undergone 3 years of jail
sentence, therefore, at this stage he may be granted bail by suspending jail
sentence.
On the other hand, the learned State Counsel would submit that when
the appellant was apprehended he had two bags in which number of packets
were kept and samples were drawn from one packet of each bag, therefore,
that fully satisfies the requirement of law. Relying upon the judgments of the
Supreme Court in the case of Basheer alias N.P. Basheer vs. State of
Kerala, (2004) 5 SCC 659 and Alpesh Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan,
(2004) 5 SCC 661, learned counsel for State would submit that the ratio of
decision in the case of Gaunter Edwin (supra) is with regard to small quantity
and the criminal liability and it does not lay down any law regarding mixing
and drawal of samples.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, particularly, taking into
consideration that even according to the case of prosecution sample was
drawn only from one packet of each bag and there is no evidence of all the
quantities either being mixed or sample drawn from each packet, we are
inclined to allow the application for suspension of sentence. Accordingly,
application is allowed.
It is directed that the substantive jail sentence imposed upon Appellant
shall remain suspended during pendency of the appeal and he shall be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- along with
two local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial
Court, for his appearance before the concerned trial Court on 05 th October,
2021 and on all such further dates as may be directed by the said Court,
interval being not less than six months, till final disposal of this appeal .
Post the appeal for final hearing in its due turn.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) (Vimla Singh Kapoor)
Judge Judge
Chandra
