Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pappulal vs Govt. Of India Through Narcotics ... on 15 February, 2022
Author: Vivek Rusia
- : 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)
ON THE 15th OF FEBRUARY, 2022
CRA No.7538/2018
(PAPPULAL VS. GOVT. OF INDIA THROUGH NARCOTICS
CONTROL BUREAU)
ORDER
Shri Santosh Kumar Meena, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Manoj Soni, learned counsel for the respondent/NCB.
******
Heard on I.A. No.4494/2021, which is second application under
Section 389 of Cr.P.C. for suspension of remaining jail sentence.
The appellant has been convicted under Section 8/18 (b) of
N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced to undergo 11 years R.I. with fine of Rs.
1,00,000/- with default stipulation.
As per prosecution story, on 02.10.2012, Sanjay Kumar Acharya
of Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) has received a discrete
information that Pappulal Porwal alongwith Kayyum are going
through Maruti Van bearing registration No. MP-09-V-0769 to receive
10 kg. Opium, thereafter they would be proceeded to deliver the same
to co-accused Imran @ Aarif. After recording the information, a team
was constituted and reached to the location given by the informant.
Near about 11:30, the team found the aforesaid vehicle, it was stopped
and introduction was given. Pappulal was found to drive the vehicle
and after completion of section 50 of N.D.P.S.Act, thereafter vehicle
was searched and from which three bags containing 09 kg. 610 gram
opium was found. The appellant was arrested. The statement under
Section 67 of N.D.P.S. Act was recorded in which appellant named the
co-accused Kayyum that he accompanied in the vehicle but get out on
- : 2 :-
the way. Complaint was filed against all the accused. Charges were
framed which they denied and pleaded for the trial.
After evaluating the evidence came on record the Special Judge
NDPS Act, Neemuch convicted the appellant as stated above.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has
been sentenced to undergo 11 years of jail sentence out of which he
has already undergone more than 9 years and this appeal is not likely
to come up for final hearing in near future. In support of his contention
he has placed reliance over the recent judgment passed by Apex Court
in Criminal Appeal No.287/2018 in which Apex Court has suspended
the sentence in similar facts and circumstance. He has also produced
another judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No.1562/2021 (Mossa
Koya KP Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) in which sentence of the accused
has been suspended after undergoing 8 years of jail sentence out of 10
years on the ground that the appeal is unlikely to be heard early. In all
probability, the entire sentence would have been undergone by the time
the appeal is heard. In the aforesaid circumstance, the Coordinate
Bench has also suspended the jail sentence in Criminal Appeal
No.52/2017 after undergoing 9 years 3 month jail sentence out of 12
years.
Shri Soni opposes the application by submitting that unless there
are the grounds available under Section 37 of NDPS Act is not liable to
be suspended. In support of his contention he has placed over the
judgment passed in the case of The State (GNCT of Delhi) narcotics
Control Bureau Vs. Lokesh Chadha (Criminal Appeal No.257/2021).
We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the
record as well judgments cited by the learned counsel.
In the judgment passed in case of The State (GNCT of Delhi)
narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Lokesh Chadha (Criminal Appeal
No.257/2021) in which provision of Section 37 of N.D.P.S. has been
considered but in that case the appellant had only completed four years
of jail sentence out of 10 years, therefore, the Apex Court has denied to
suspend the jail sentence of accused. Thereafter in case of Mossa Koya
- : 3 :-
KP (supra) has again considered the application for suspension and
allowed the same.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties,we are of
the of the considered opinion that the application for suspension
of custodial sentence moved on behalf of the appellant deserved
to be allowed.
Accordingly, I.A. No.4494/2021, is allowed and it is directed
that subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal
bond by the appellant in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One
Lakh only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Court for his appearance before the
Court, the execution of custodial part of the sentence shall remain
suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.
The appellant after being enlarged on bail, the appellant
shall mark his presence before concerned trial court on
22/09/2022 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in
this regard by Trial Court concerned.
Certified copy, as per rules.
( VIVEK RUSIA ) ( RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA )
JUDGE JUDGE
praveen/-
Digitally signed by
PRAVEEN NAYAK
Date: 2022.02.15
18:24:20 +05'30'
