Vishal Shahni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 14085 MP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR CRA No. 4576 of 2023 (VISHAL SHAHNI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Dated : 28-08-2023 Shri Durgesh Singrore - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri R. G. Verma - Panel lawyer for the State.

Heard on I.A.No.7234/2023, which is first application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, moved on behalf of the appellant.

The appellant has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 8(C)/ 20(B)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years and fine of Rs.15,000/-, with default stipulation.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the matter. He also submits that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record and committed error in convicting the appellant for the aforesaid offence. The appeal would take considerable time to conclude. He is ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by the directions and conditions, which

may be imposed by this Court. Hence, it is prayed that the application for suspension of sentence may be considered.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application and prays for its rejection.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and record of the court below.

This application for suspension of sentence has been argued on the ground that compliance of section 50 of the NDPS Act has not been ensured in

its legal spirit.

Considering this argument, the record of the trial court is perused. It needs to be observed that the seizure in this case was not from the person of appellant but from the vehicle which was in his possession. Therefore, non-application of section 50 of the NDPS Act cannot be a ground to allow the application for suspension of sentence.

It has also been argued that the alleged seizure was from joint possession but it has not been challenged that the appellant was present in the vehicle from which the seizure was made and exclusive possession is not required when there is evidence regarding constructive possession.

The appellant has relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the cases of State of Rajasthan v. Parmanand & Anr. decided in Criminal Appeal No.78/2005 and Simarnjit Singh v. State of Punjab decided in Criminal Appeal No.1443/2023 but these judgments are distinguishable on facts. In the case of State of Rajasthan (supra) the seizure was not made from any vehicle and in the case of Simarnjit Singh (supra) the procedure adopted for drawing samples was not found to be in conformity with law.That fact has not been argued here.

With the aforesaid observations, the application stands dismissed.

(ANURADHA SHUKLA) JUDGE

ps

Digitally signed by PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA Date: 2023.08.29 10:50:51 +05'30' Adobe Reader version: 11.0.8