Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ballu Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:23740) on 24 May, 2024

Author: Manoj Kumar Garg

Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg

[2024:RJ-JD:23740]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
 S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
                                   No. 1183/2023

Billu Singh S/o Chanan Singh, Aged About 67 Years, B/c Sansi,
R/o Rambagh Basti, Bus Stand Ke Pass, Barnal Thana Barnala
City, Dist. Barnala, Punjab. (Presently Lodged At Central Jail,
Ajmer)
                                                                        ----Petitioner
                                         Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                      ----Respondent
                                   Connected With
 S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
                                    No. 733/2023
Pinda Singh @ Bhinda Singh S/o Shri Hansa Singh, Aged About
46 Years, R/o Chakdab Khushal Joiyan Jalalabad Thana Chak
Vairo Ka Dist. Fazilka Punjab (At Present Lodged In Central Jail
Ajmer)
                                                                        ----Petitioner
                                         Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                      ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)              :     Mr. Mangi Lal Vishnoi
                                     Mr. Mahipal Vishnoi
For Respondent(s)              :     Mr. A.R. Choudhary, PP assisted by
                                     Mr. Pallav Sharma



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Order

24/05/2024

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the

appellants are inside the jail for five years and seven months. The

recovery of contraband was made on 17.09.2018 and the samples

were sent for FSL on 18.09.2018, but inventory before the

[2024:RJ-JD:23740] (2 of 5) [SOSA-1183/2023]

Magistrate in this case was prepared on 30.11.2018. Counsel

further submits it is clear cut violation of provisions of Section

52(A) of NDPS Act. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Mohanlal &

Anr [AIR Online 2016 SC 606]. In the said judgment, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"It is manifest from Section 52A (2)(c) (supra) that upon seizure of the contraband the same has to be forwarded either to the officer in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under Section 53 who shall prepare an inventory as stipulated in the said provision and make an application to the Magistrate for purposes of (a) certifying the correctness of the inventory (b) certifying photographs of such drugs or substances taken before the Magistrate as true and (c) to draw representative samples in the presence of the Magistrate and certifying the correctness of the list of samples so drawn. Sub-section (3) of Section 52- A requires that the Magistrate shall as soon as may be allow the application. This implies that no sooner the seizure is effected and the contraband forwarded to the officer in charge of the Police Station or the officer empowered, the officer concerned is in law duty bound to approach the Magistrate for the purposes mentioned above including grant of permission to draw representative samples in his presence, which samples will then be enlisted and the correctness of the list of samples so drawn certified by the Magistrate. In other words, the process of drawing of samples has to be in the presence and under the supervision of the Magistrate and the entire exercise has to be certified by him to be correct. The question of drawing of samples at the time of seizure which, more often than not, takes place in the absence of the Magistrate does not in the above scheme of things arise. This is so especially when according to Section 52-A(4) of the Act, samples drawn and certified by the Magistrate in compliance with sub-section (2) and (3) of Section 52-A above constitute primary evidence for the purpose of the trial. Suffice it to say that there is no provision in the Act that mandates taking of samples at the time of seizure. That is perhaps why none of the States claim to be taking samples at the time of seizure. Be that as it may, a conflict between the statutory provision governing taking of samples and the standing order issued by the Central Government is evident when the two are placed

[2024:RJ-JD:23740] (3 of 5) [SOSA-1183/2023]

in juxtaposition. There is no gainsaid that such a conflict shall have to be resolved in favour of the statute on first principles of interpretation but the continuance of the statutory notification in its present form is bound to create confusion in the minds of the authorities concerned instead of helping them in the discharge of their duties. The Central Government would, therefore, do well, to re-examine the matter and take suitable steps in the above direction".

Counsel has also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Khalid and Anr. Vs.

State of Telangana, Criminal Appeal No.1610/2023,

decided on 01.03.2024. The relevant para is as under:

"Admittedly, no proceedings under Section 52A of the NDPS Act were undertaken by the Investigating Officer PW-5 for preparing an inventory and obtaining samples in presence of the jurisdictional Magistrate. In this view of the matter, the FSL report(Exhibit P-11) is nothing but a waste paper and cannot be read in evidence. The accused A-3 and A-4 were not arrested at the spot. The offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) deals with production, manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, transport, import or export of cannabis. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused A-3 and A-4 were found in possession of ganja. The highest case of the prosecution which too is not substantiated by any admissible or tangible evidence is that these two accused had conspired sale / purchase of ganja with A-1 and A-2. The entire case of the prosecution as against these two accused is based on the interrogation notes A-1 and A-2".

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made by

the counsel for the appellants for suspension of the sentence.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

Upon a consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf

of the appellants and having regard to the facts and circumstances

of the case, therefore, this court is of the opinion that it is a fit

[2024:RJ-JD:23740] (4 of 5) [SOSA-1183/2023]

case for suspending the substantive sentence awarded to the

accused appellants.

Accordingly, the applications for suspension of sentence filed

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

sentence passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases,

(Additional Sessions Judge), Gulabpura, District Bhilwara vide

judgment dated 04.05.2023 in Sessions Case No.07/2019 against

the appellants-applicants - (1) Billu Singh S/o Chanan Singh and

(2) Pinda Singh @ Bhinda Singh S/o Shri Hansa Singh shall

remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal subject

to the condition that the appellants shall deposit 50% of the fine

amount as imposed by the learned trial Court and they shall be

released on bail, provided each of them executes a personal bond

in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.1,00,000/-

each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their

appearance in this court on 05.07.2024 and whenever ordered to

do so till the disposal of the appeals on the conditions indicated

below:-

1. That they will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.

2. That if the applicants changes the place of residence, they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.