Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Prakash Jat vs State Of Rajasthan on 31 May, 2024
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:25046]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 816/2021
Prakash Jat S/o Sh. Amba Lal, Aged About 34 Years, B/c Jat, R/o
Village Lesawa, Bagore Police Station, Dist. Bhilwara. (Lodged In
Dist. Jail, Bhilwara).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Poonia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
Reserved on 30/05/2024
Pronounced on 31/05/2024
1. The applicant-appellant herein has been convicted and
sentenced as below vide the impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 08.11.2019 passed by the learned Special
Judge N.D.P.S., Bhilwara in Sessions Case No.61/2007:
Offence under Sentence Fine
Sections
8/15 NDPS Act 12 years (R.I.) Rs.1,00,000/-, in default of
which, to undergo further
one year R.I.
2. The applicant-appellant has preferred the application for
suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension
of sentence during pendency of the appeal and for release on bail.
[2024:RJ-JD:25046] (2 of 4) [SOSA-816/2021]
The applicant-appellant has been convicted as above on the
ground of recovery of poppy straw (Doda Post) weighing 576 kgs.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant submitted that the
recovery of the contraband in question has been made from the
applicant-appellant on 06.05.2017 and the same was sent for FSL
on 09.05.2017, however, the inventory before the Magistrate was
prepared as per the Section 52-A NDPS Act on 08.06.2017,
therefore, clearly there is a delay of one month in conducting the
said proceeding.
3.1. It was further submitted that the applicant-appellant has
been in custody for last more than seven years i.e. 7 years and 24
days. Thus, as per learned counsel, the applicant-appellant
deserves the indulgence of suspension of sentence in the instant
application.
3.2. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon
the following orders passed by the Coordinate Bench of this
Hon'ble Court:
(a) Balwinder Singh @ Poly Vs State of Rajasthan (S.B.Crl. Misc.
Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 923/2023,
decided on 16.05.2024);
(b) Kulvinder Singh @ Gora Vs State of Rajasthan (S.B.Crl. Misc.
Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1123/2023,
decided on 24.05.2024) and;
(c) Jagjeet Singh & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan (S.B.Crl. Misc.
Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 445/2022,
decided on 24.05.2024).
[2024:RJ-JD:25046] (3 of 4) [SOSA-816/2021]
4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor, while opposing
the instant application, submitted that that the prosecution has
been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts before
the learned Trial Court, and thus, the instant application for
suspension of sentence deserves dismissal.
4.1. It was further submitted that the contraband in question is
clearly more than the commercial quantity and therefore, the
applicant-appellant is not entitled for the relief prayed for in the
instant application.
4.2. In support of such submissions, learned Public Prosecutor
relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Union of India Vs Rattan Mallik @ Habul (Crl.A.
No. 137 of 2009, decided on 23.01.2009).
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
record of the case alongwith orders referred at the Bar.
6. This Court finds that the concerned police authority
recovered the contraband i.e. Poppy straw (Doda Post) weighing
576 kgs. from the vehicle being driven by the applicant-appellant,
whereafter, the learned Trial Court during trial had examined total
14 prosecution witnesses and duly appreciated the material placed
on record before it, prior to passing the impugned judgment of
conviction. relevant
7. This Court further finds that it appears that the recovery of
the contraband in question was made from the applicant-appellant
by the concerned police authorities, after following the due
procedure as prescribed under the NDPS Act.
[2024:RJ-JD:25046] (4 of 4) [SOSA-816/2021]
8. This Court is conscious of the fact that in criminal cases
especially, the Courts have to examine each fact and
circumstances before passing the order of denial or grant of
suspension of sentence to the accused concerned. In the present
case, the applicant-appellant was found involved in a heinous
offence and the contraband recovered in this case is much beyond
the commercial quantity, and such a crime is against the public at
large. Thus, this Court is not inclined to suspend the sentence
awarded to the applicant appellant in this case
9. Looking into the peculiar factual matrix of the present case,
this Court finds that the orders referred at the Bar on behalf the
applicant-appellant do not render any assistance to the case of the
applicant-appellant.
10. Consequently, the present application for suspension of
sentence application is dismissed at this stage.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
8-Skan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
