Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahendra Pratap Singh Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 May, 2024
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Anuradha Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 9872 of 2023
(MAHENDRA PRATAP SINGH YADAV AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 27-05-2024
Shri Sankalp Kochar - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Amit Garg - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A No.12544/2024, which is s e c o nd application under
Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved
on behalf of appellant Mahendra Pratap Singh and I.A. No.4287/2024, which
is first application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail moved on behalf of appellant No.2 Vinod Kumar Yadav.
The appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 8C, 20(b)(ii-C) r/w Section 29 of NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo
R.I. for 10 years with fine or Rs.1,00,000/-, with default stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellants are innocent
and have 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 appellants for aforesaid
offence. The maximum jail sentence of appellants is ten years. The appeal
would take considerable time to conclude. They are 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.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the application
and prayed for its rejection.
The applications under consideration have been argued on the ground
that compliance of Section 52-A of NDPS Act was not ensured while drawing
the samples of ganja and entire quantity of ganja was made homogenous
before drawing the samples. While first application for suspension of sentence
filed by the appellant Mahendra was not decided on merits and it was dismissed
as withdrawn while appellant Vinod has filed this application for suspension of
sentence for the very first time. Thus, the arguments submitted here were never
considered by the Court earlier.
Learned counsel for the appellants has very aptly relied on the decision of
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court delivered in M.Cr.C. No.30722/2022 and
Cr.A. No.1173/2015. In both these cases, the Court observed that mixing the
contents of all the bags together contaminated the entire proceeding of drawing
the samples and for this fact alone, the judgment of acquittal was passed in
Cr.A. No.1173/2015 by Division Bench.
Taking these legal and factual aspects into consideration, the applications
under discussion are allowed.
It is directed that subject to deposit of fine amount, if already not
deposited and on furnishing a personal bond by the appellants in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like
amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court for their regular appearance
before the concerned trial Court, the execution of custodial part of the
remaining sentence imposed against the appellants shall remain suspended, till
final disposal of this appeal. The appellants, after being enlarged on bail, shall
mark their presence before the concerned trial Court on 26.08.2024 and on all
such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the concerned trial
Court.
List for final hearing in due course.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
pnm
