Jharkhand High Court
Bijendra Sah @ Vijendra Sah vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 April, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1444 of 2023
------
Bijendra Sah @ Vijendra Sah, aged about 41 years, Son of Late
Rajendra Sah, resident of Village Dadar, Post Dadar, Police Station
Mohania, District Kaimur, Bihar
.... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Advocate
Mr. Raj, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P.
------
06/Dated: 07.04.2025
I.A.(Cr.) No.7718 of 2023
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under
Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence dated
04.03.2023 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I-cum-
Special Judge, Gumla in N.D.P.S. Case No.20 of 2021, arising out of
NCB Crime No.01/NCB/Ranchi/2021, whereby and whereunder, the
appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for twenty years along
with fine of Rs.1,50,000/- for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of
the NDPS, Act and in default of payment of fine, he has further been
directed to undergo R.I. for three years.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a
case where there are no independent witnesses, rather, the case has
been proved only on the basis of prosecution witnesses.
3. It has also been contended that the seizure witnesses have
also denied to have seen any recovery, rather, they have submitted
that they had put their signatures on the plain paper.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid
grounds, has submitted that it is a fit case where the sentence is to
be suspended since without any material evidence, the judgment of
conviction has been passed.
5. While on the other hand, learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the
respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer for
suspension of sentence.
6. It has been contended that the contraband has been seized
and samplings have been done in pursuant to the provision laid
down under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, 1985. Sampling from each
packets, has been taken in presence of A.C.J.M. and thereafter, it
was sent to the FSL, wherein, the certificate regarding the
contraband has been corroborated. Further, all the packets of
contraband have been found to be 118 kg.
7. Learned State Counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds,
has submitted that it is, therefore, not a fit case where the sentence
is to be suspended.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the finding recorded by the learned trial court in the
impugned judgment as also the testimony available in the trial court
records and other material exhibits available therein.
9. This Court, in order to appreciate the argument advanced on
behalf of the parties, has gone through the entire material which is
available in the trial court records and found therefrom that the
seizure has been done in pursuant to the provision contained under
Section 52A of the NDPS Act, 1985 read with Rule 8, 9 and 10 of the
NDPS Rule, 2022.
10. It is also evident that the sampling has been done by taking the
samples from each packets in presence of Magistrate (A.C.J.M.) and
thereafter, it was sent to FSL. The FSL report has come, wherein, the
certificate regarding the contraband has been corroborated.
11. This Court, considering the fact that the procedure as laid
down under the statutory command has been followed and further,
the quantity of contraband have been found to be 118 kg, therefore,
is of the view that it is not a case where the sentence is to be
suspended.
12. Accordingly, interlocutory application being I.A.(Cr.) No.7718 of
2023 stands dismissed.
13. It is made clear that any observation made herein will not
prejudice the issue on merit as the appeal is lying pending for its
consideration.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Rohit/-
