Madhya Pradesh High Court

Rughnath vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 May, 2024

Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari

Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari

                                                              1
                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT INDORE
                                                       CRA No. 691 of 2022
                                               (RUGHNATH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                           Dated : 03-05-2024
                                 Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant.

                                 Shri Kamal Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.18007/2023, which is second application filed under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of appellant - Rughnath Malviya S/o Shobharam Malviya.

2. Learned Trial Court has convicted the present appellant under Sections 8/18(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 11 years with fine of Rs. 1,10,000/- for offence and default stipulations vide judgement of conviction and order of sentence 24.12.2021 passed by the Additional Special Judge, (NDPS Act) Mandsaur (MP) in Special Case No.12/2011.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that present appellant has not committed the offence and he has falsely been implicated in the case. The seizure witnesses did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile.

The mandate of Sections 42, 50, 52A, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act were not followed, in as much as, the seizure was not made in front of the Magistrate. T he samples were drawn from the place of incident itself. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the case of Simranjeet Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2023 Live Law SC 570 and contended that the Magistrate has to certify the correctness of the inventory and also certified that all such drugs and substance have been taken before the Magistrate and to draw representative samples in the presence of the Magistrate

who is required to certify the correctness of list of samples so drawn.

4. It is further submitted that as per Section 32(B) of the NDPS Act, if higher punishment is imposed than the minimum punishment prescribed, then special reasons have to be assigned by the Magistrate for doing so. In the present case, the punishment imposed is 11 years whereas the mandate of Section 32B of the NDPS Act have not been followed. Since the appeal is of the year 2022, final hearing of this appeal is not possible in near future and the appellant is in jail, since long, therefore, it is prayed that the remaining jail sentence may be suspended and present appellant may be released on bail.

5. Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State supported the

impugned judgment and prays for rejection of application for suspension of sentence.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, it is found that the first application of the appellant was decided on merits on 05.07.2023 and there are no changed circumstances, hence, I.A. No.18007/2023 is dismissed.

                                (S. A. DHARMADHIKARI)                                           (HIRDESH)
                                         JUDGE                                                    JUDGE

                           N.R.