VIDIT Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved since his application for suspension of sentence has been declined as per the impugned order dated 25.10.2016.

(2.) Sh. Sushil Kumar Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, has invitedour attention to the merits of the matter in detail; however, in the nature of the order wepropose to pass, we do not think it necessary and proper to refer to the same.

(3.) Suffice to note that the petitioner before us was a student, he had no other criminalantecedents and there is no recovery from him. He had been convicted under Sec. 29read with Sec. 8 with Sec. 20(B)(ii)(c) of The Narcotic Drugs and PsychotropicSubstances Act (in short, "NDPS Act") and the allegation was that he was piloting thevehicle in which the other two accused were transporting contraband, i.e. 60 kgs ofGanja. It is also seen that the bail application of the petitioner was considered along withthe application of one of the other accused from whom there was recovery.