Madhya Pradesh High Court
Biharilal vs Central Bureau Of Narcotics Govt. ... on 16 June, 2021
Author: Vivek Rusia
-1- CRA No.2026/2020
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH AT INDORE
CRA NO.2026/2020
Biharilal s/o Bharulal
vs.
Central Bureau of Narcotics, Neemuch
16.06.2021: (INDORE):
Shri S.K.Meena, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Manoj Kumar Soni, learned counsel for the respondent.
Heard through video conferencing.
Heard on IA No.4298/21, a first application filed under section
389 Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence on behalf of the appellant.
Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated
03.01.2020 passed by Special Judge (NDPS Act), Neemuch in Special
Case No.20/15 whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the
appellant under section 8/19 of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to
undergo RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/-; in default of
payment of fine further RI for one year.
In the year 2010-11 a license was issued to the appellant for
cultivation of opium in his agricultural land situated in the village
Kundla and under the condition of the license he was to give whole
crops of the opium in pure state to the department. On 08.04.2011 the
appellant submitted whole opium weighing 30 kg. 280 gms. in a
container which was sealed and numbered as 1478. The samples of the
opium were tested and as per the test report dated 16.06.2011 the
opium submitted by the appellant was found mixed with foregone
material / adulterated . The actual quantity of the crops was not
supplied to the CNB by the appellant . Accordingly, an FIR has been
registered against the appellant. After undergoing the entire trial,
learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced as mentioned herein
above.
Shri Meena, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant was on bail during trial and after conviction he is in custody
since 03.01.2020 and he has already undergone more than one and half
-2- CRA No.2026/2020
year of sentence. The hearing of this appeal will likely to take long
tine, hence prays for suspension of sentence and release of the
appellant on bail.
Shri Soni, learned counsel appearing for the CBN has filed a
reply to the application opposing the prayer by submitting that the
minimum sentence prescribed for the offence is 10 years RI, however,
the appellant has only undergone one and half years RI, hence in view
of section 37 of the NDPS Act he is not entitled for bail at this stage.
In support of his contention he has placed reliance over the judgments
in the case of Dadu vs. State reported in 2000 (8) SCC 437; Union of
Inida vs. Ratan Malik reported in 2009 (1) SCC (Cri.) 831 & Ratan
Kumar Viswas vs. State reported in 2009 AIR (SC) 581.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
Without observation on merit, appellant is not entitled for bail at
this stage. Accordingly, the application is rejected.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
Digitally signed by HARI KUMAR
C G NAIR
hk/ Date: 2021.06.21 17:22:32 +05'30'
