Madhya Pradesh High Court
Balu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 June, 2021
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2325 OF 2019
(Balu and Another vs The State of Madhya Pradesh)
Indore, Dated 14.06.2021
Heard the matter through Video Conferencing.
Mr. Mradul Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellants.
Mr. Amit Singh Sisodiya, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
ORDER
Per Shailendra Shukla, J:
Heard on IA No.3752/2021 which is an application for
urgent hearing of the case.
Keeping in view the reasons mentioned in the application,
the application for urgent hearing stands allowed. Accordingly,
IA No.3752/2021 stands disposed of.
Also heard on IA No.3751/2021 which is second
application filed under Section 389 (1) of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 seeking suspension of sentence of appellant
No.1 Balu Dadvi S/o Late Damodar Dadvi who has been
convicted by Special Judge, NDPS Act, 1985, Barwani, in
Special Case No.01/2016 vide judgment dated 09.02.2019 and
sentenced him as under:-
Conviction Sentence
Section & Act Imprisonment Fine Amount Imprisonment
in lieu of fine
U/s 8(c) read RI of 11-11 Rs.1,00,000/- 2-2 years addl.
with 20(b)(II) of years. RI.
NDPS Act, 1985
The first suspension application having been withdrawn
on 11.11.2017.
As per prosecution story, on 11.11.2015, pursuant to an
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2325 OF 2019
(Balu and Another vs The State of Madhya Pradesh)
information received, a vehicle was intercepted by the police
in which present appellant along with another co-accused
was found to be carrying 22.500 kilograms of Cannabis
(Ganja). Accordingly, case has been registered against him.
Learned counsel for the appellant No.1 submits that
appellant has completed more than half of his jail sentence
awarded to him, that during his incarceration in jail, his wife
and father had expired and the present case is not likely to
be heard in near future.
Learned counsel for the State was heard who has
pointed out that the commercial quantity of narcotic
substance has been seized from the joint possession of
appellant and co-accused and, therefore, the rigours of
Section 37 of NDPS Act would have to met with by the
appellant before his second suspension application is being
allowed. Learned counsel submits that there is no lacunae in
the prosecution case and all stipulated procedures as per the
Act have been followed strictly.
Considered.
It is trite to say that the appellant in order to secure the
benefit of suspension of sentence, would be required to
cross the hurdle, as contained in Section 37 of NDPS Act,
meaning thereby that it would be required to show that the
appellant is not prima-facie guilty of committing the offence
found proved against him and is not likely to repeat the
offence.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2325 OF 2019
(Balu and Another vs The State of Madhya Pradesh)
On perusal of the record and impugned judgment, it
does not appear that there is any prima facie lapse in the
investigation or in the appreciation in evidence of witnesses
which would render any benefit to the present appellant and
hence, the conditions under Section 37 of NDPS Act have
not been met with by the appellant. Consequently, his
sentence is not liable to be suspended. Accordingly, IA
No.3751/2021 which is second application filed on behalf of
appellant No.1 Balu Dadvi stands rejected.
Record has been received.
Be listed for final hearing in due course.
(SUJOY PAUL) (SHAILENDRA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Arun/-
Digitally signed by ARUN
NAIR
Date: 2021.06.15 18:44:12
+05'30'
