Narayan Das vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5765 Chatt

                                                                           Page 1 of 3

                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                    Order Sheet

                                     CRA No. 260 of 2021
  Ambika Vishwakarma S/o Shivprasad Vishawkarma Aged About 31 Years Resident Of
   Chainpur , Police Station Lakhanpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.
                                                                         ---- Appellant
                                       Versus
  State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Ambikapur ,
   District Surguja Chhattisgarh.                                     ---- Respondent

with

CRA No. 349 of 2021  Narayan Das, S/o Late Shri Ramdas, Aged About 43 Years R/o.- Kewra, Police Station

- Lakhanpur, District - Sarguja Chhattisgarh. ---- Appellant Versus  State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Kotwali, Ambikapur, District - Sarguja Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent

14.09.2022 Dr. Shailesh Ahuja, counsel for the appellant/CRA No. 260 of 2021.

Mr. Rishi Sahu, counsel for the appellant/CRA No. 349 of 2021.

Mr. Arjit Tiwari, PL for the State/respondent.

Heard on IA No. 02/2022 this is 2 nd application for suspension of

sentence and grant of bail to the appellant - Ambika Vishwakarma.

By the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 21.01.2021

passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Surguja, Ambikapur,

District Surguja, CG in Special Criminal (NDPS) No. 04/2019 appellant has

been convicted for the ofence punishable under Section 21 (C) of

Narcotic Psychotropic Substances Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 12

years and fne of Rs. 1,10,000/-, in default of payment of fne 3 years

additional R.I.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned trial

Court has committed an error in holding that the quantity of the Narcotic

Drugs was a commercial quantity, which in fact was the intermediate

quantity. He submits that 4 mg Codeine Phosphate is available in 100 ml

bottle of the drug Codeine, therefore, according to his submissions the

actual quantity contained in the bottle should have been considered, not

the entire 100 ml. He further submits that even if the entire quantity of

Codeine is excluded from the total number of bottles seized, it would fall

within the intermediate quantity, not the commercial quantity. In support

of this contention he relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the Case of E. Micheal Raj Vs. Intelligence Ofcec,

Naccotic Contcol Buceau in Appeal (Crl.) No. 1250 of 2005 dated 11

March, 2008 and the Judgment passed by the High court of Delhi in Bail

Application No. 136 of 2021 in the matter of Mohd Ahsan Vs. Customs

decided on 25 June, 2021. He submits that in view of the above

authoritative pronouncements the application may be allowed and the

sentence imposed upon the appellant may be suspended during the

pendency of the appeal, and he may be granted bail during pendency of

the appeal.

On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that in view of

the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Heeca Singh and

Anothec Vs. Union of India and Anothec reported in (2020) 20 SCC

272, it is apparent that the quantity so seized would fall in the category

of commercial quantity. He submits that the frst application for

suspension of sentence and grant of bail was dismissed by this Court on

24.06.2021 on merits therefore, second application so fled is also liable to

be rejected.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their

rival submissions, and also perused the records with utmost

circumspection.

Taking into consideration the submission of learned counsel for the

respective parties, the evidence collected by the prosecution, relying

upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Heera Singh (Supra) and

particularly looking to the fact that the frst application for suspension of

sentence and grant of bail was dismissed on merits, we are not inclined to

allow this second application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

Therefore, I.A. No. 02/2022 is Rejected. However, liberty is reserved to

the appellant to move an application for urgent hearing of the appeal

itself.

List this matter for fnal hearing along with CRA No. 349 of 2021.

                         Sd/-                                      Sd/-

                  (Sanjay K. Agcawal)                     (Sachin Singh Rajput)

                         Judge                                     Judge



Pawan