Khetaram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 4795 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Khetaram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 February, 2024

Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla

Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE CRA No. 76 of 2023 (KHETARAM Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Dated : 19-02-2024 Shri Santosh Kumar Meena - Advocate for appellant.

Shri Shashikant Bhati - PP for State.

Heard on IA No.1064/2023 which is first application under section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence of jail sentence.

2. The appellant has been convicted u/S.15(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as the Act) and

sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- with default stipulation.

4 . Counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has failed to comply with the provisions of section 52A(2)(c) of the Act. He has drawn attention of this Court to Ex.P./7 and also the testimony of PW.11 Investigating Officer B.K. Dubey to establish the fact that the samples were taken at the spot and not before the Magistrate. Thus the provisions of Sec.52A(2)(c) of the Act has not been complied with. Since the provisions of Section section 52A(2)(c) of the Act have not been complied with and, therefore, the benefit of doubt has

to be granted to the appellant. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Mohanlal & Anr. (2016) 3 SCC 379 , which has been followed by the Apex Court in the case of Simranjeet Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2023 Live Law SC 570. It is further argued that following the aforesaid judgments the Division Bench has also suspended the jail sentence in Criminal Appeal No.562/2023 (Devkishan vs. State of MP).

5. Counsel for the State supports the order of conviction and sentence. 6 . After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the finding of the trial Court regarding compliance of provision of Section 52-A of the Act is contrary to Ex.P/7. Thus, prima facie samples have been taken by the investigating officer itself on the spot which is contrary to the aforesaid provisions of section 52-A of the Act and the judgment passed by the Apex Court.

7. Considering the aforesaid, the IA is allowed. The substantive jail sentence of the appellant RKhetaram is suspended upon depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited, and on furnishing bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/-

with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for appearance before the Registry of this Court on 02.04.2024 and on the subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.

C.c. as per rules.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE

VM