Pappu vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 15029 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1131/2022

IN

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1905/2022

Pappu S/o Shri Ramjag Yadav, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Todikavpur, Inayat Nagar Police Station, District Faizabad (Up), At Present R/o J-22, Jj Camp Bharti Nagar Tuglak Nagar Police Station, Delhi. (Confined In District Jail, Bhilwara)

----Appellant Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Neeraj Kumar Gurjar Ms. Shobha Prabhakar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Javed Gauri, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

21/12/2022

Heard learned counsel for the accused appellant and learned

Public Prosecutor on the application for suspension of sentence

and perused the judgment impugned dated 16.11.2022 passed by

Special Judge (N.D.P.S. cases) Gulabpura, Bhilwara whereby the

accused appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable

under sections 8/15 & 8/25 of NDPS Act and has been sentenced

with maximum of seven years rigorous imprisonment along with

fine of Rs. 70,000/-.

Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that the

trial court has grossly erred in convicting and sentencing the

accused-appellant. He submits that appellant has nothing to do

(2 of 4) [SOSA-1131/2022]

with the alleged offence, he has been booked in this matter simply

on the count that he was the registered owner of the vehicle. He

further submits that to invoke the penal provision under Section

25 of the NDPS Act, it is imperative upon the prosecution to

establish the fact by producing the definite evidence that the

accused was having knowledge regarding the illegal transportation

of contraband. However, no such evidence has been brought on

record. Knowledge is the crux of Section 25 of the NDPS Act. He

further submits the appellant was on bail during trial and he never

misused the liberty granted in his favour. Therefore, the

application for suspension of sentence may be granted.

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the prayer

made by learned counsel for the accused-appellant and submits

that the matter pertains to recovery of 34 kilograms of Poppy

husk and the judgment of conviction passed by learned Court

below does not warrant any interference.

The matter pertains to recovery of poppy husk below

commercial quantity, thus, the embargo contained under section

37 of NDPS Act is not attracted. The petitioner had been on bail

during trial but never misused the liberty granted in his favour. In

view of the submissions raised, the matter requires de-novo

appreciation of evidence. The petitioner is behind the bars since

long and the hearing of appeal may likely to take further more

time, therefore, considering the overall submissions and looking to

the totality of facts and circumstances of the case while refraining

from passing any comments on the niceties of the material and

the defects of the prosecution as the same may put an adverse

effect on hearing of the appeal, this court is of the opinion that it

(3 of 4) [SOSA-1131/2022]

is a fit case for suspending the sentence awarded to the accused

appellant.

Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed

under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the

sentences passed by the learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S. cases),

Gulabpura, Bhilwara, vide judgment dated 16.11.2022 in Sessions

Case No.27/2017 against the appellant-applicant Pappu S/o Shri

Ramjag Yadav shall remain suspended till final disposal of the

aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail provided he

executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-with two

sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial

Judge for his appearance in this court on 24.01.2023 and

whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the

conditions indicated below:-

1. That he/she/they will appear before the trial

Court in the month of January of every year till the

appeal is decided.

2. That if the applicant(s) changes the place of

residence, he/she/they will give in writing

his/her/their changed address to the trial Court as

well as to the counsel in the High Court.

3. Similarly, if the sureties change their

address(s),they will give in writing their changed

address to the trial Court.

The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of

the accused-applicant(s) in a separate file. Such file be registered

as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the

accused-applicant was/were tried and convicted. A copy of this

(4 of 4) [SOSA-1131/2022]

order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal

Misc. file shall not be taken into account for statistical purpose

relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In

case the said accused applicant does not appear before the trial

court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High

Court for cancellation of bail.

(FARJAND ALI),J 555-Anshul/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)