PAWAN MEHTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants were held guilty under Sections 18 and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short 'the Act'), in the case FIR No.137/89, P.S.Karol Bagh, and sentenced to imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs.1.0 lac, in default, further imprisonment for one year each, by the judgment and order dated 9/11/2000, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. Appeals against the said judgment and order have already been admitted. This order will dispose of their applications under Section 389 Criminal Procedure Code for suspension of sentence during pendency of the appeal and for being released on bail.

(2.) Facts necessary for the disposal of these applications are: on 17/4/1989 at about 11.45 a.m. secret information was received at P.S.Karol Bagh that a white colour maruti car would be passing through the area with huge quantity of opium. The information (Ex.PW-7/A) was reduced into writing and raiding party was put in position. Maruti car DAJ 3594 was intercepted. It was being driven by Pawan Mehta and Naveen Mehta was found sitting on the front seat. They were told about the information and the presence of ACP Alok Kumar at the spot. Notices under Section 50 of the Act,(Ex.PW-6/A & Ex.PW.6/8) were served on them. They declined the offer of getting themselves searched before the Metropolitan Magistrate or the Gazetted Officer. A bag lying between two front seats of the car was found containing 7.180 kg. of opium in eight packets of polythene. Samples were drawn and sent to the CFSL for analysis. Copy of the Registration Book of the car was found with one of them. It showed that the car belonged to Sanjeev Singh (appellant), and on their pointing put, he was also arrested. Investigations were completed and challan was filed. After trial, all three appellants were held guilty and sentenced as aforesaid. They filed three separate appeals which have been admitted. The trial court also ordered confiscation of maruti car against which separate appeal has been filed. Learned counsel for the appellants and learned APP for the State have argued the matter at length and taken me through the record.

(3.) The Supreme Court in Dadu @ Tulsidas Vs. State of Maharaahtra. 2000(8) SCC 437, has held that during the pendency of an appeal against conviction under the Act, sentence can be suspended but subject to the limitations prescribed under Section 37 of the Act. This Section prohibits release of any person accused of the offence under the Act, punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more, unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing, that he is not guilty of such offence and that if released on bail, he is not likely to commit any offence. The question that arises for consideration is whether in this case, on the basis of the material on record, satisfaction can be reached that the appellants are not guilty of such offence, despite conviction having been recorded against them by the trial court?