Sanjay Gupta @ Sanju Chana vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 3691 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sanjay Gupta @ Sanju Chana vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 February, 2024

Author: Vivek Rusia

Bench: Vivek Rusia

                                                                 1
                                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                       AT INDORE
                                                         CRA No. 1463 of 2017
                                    (SANJAY GUPTA @ SANJU CHANA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                           Dated : 07-02-2024
                                    Shri Abhishek Rathore - Advocate for appellants.

                                    Shri Amit Rawal - Advocate for respondent/State.

Heard on I.A. No. 19265/2023, fourth application filed u/s. 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence on behalf of appellant Sanjay @ Sanju.

The appellant stands convicted under Sections 8/20(b)(2)(c) of NDPS Act and has been sentenced to undergo 14 years RI with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-

with default stipulation.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has already completed jail incarceration of more than 8 years and 6 months out of 14 years and served more than 50% of the actual awarded jail sentence. Jail sentence of co-accused Neelam has been suspended by this court vide order dated 13.12.2023 in similar circumstances. Provisions of Section 52-A of NDPS Act has not been complied with in the instant case. In support of his submission, learned counsel placed reliance upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex court in the matter of Simarnjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2023

Livelaw(SC) 570 and order dated 12.10.2023 passed by this court in Cri.A. No. 562/2023 in the matter of Devkishan Vs. State of MP. He, therefore, prays for suspension of jail sentence and release him on bail.

On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate opposes the application and prays for its rejection by submitting that appellant has five criminal records, he is a habitual offender, therefore, he does not deserve for suspension of sentence.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. On perusal of the record it appears that case of present appellant is distinguishable to the case of co-accused Neelam whose jail sentence has been suspended. The present appellant is the main accused. The witnesses Mahendra Singh Parmar (PW-11), Munendra (PW-10) categorically deposed against the present appellant in respect of commission of aforesaid offence. Process of drawing of samples has been done in presence of Executive Magistrate, which is well supported by statement of Mahendra Singh Parmar (PW-11), therefore, there is compliance of Section 52-A of NDPS Act.

In view of the evidence available on record this court is not inclined to

suspend the remaining jail sentence of appellant Sanjay. Hence this fourth application under section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.

                             (VIVEK RUSIA)                                               (ANIL VERMA)
                                 JUDGE                                                      JUDGE

                           BDJ