NAGALINGAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY invoking the power of this Court, empowered under secs. 389 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner/accused, while preferring the appeal in this Court is seeking the relief of suspension of the sentence imposed on him by the judgment rendered in C. C. No. 1 of 1992, dated 13. 7. 1993 by the learned Sessions Judge of Ramanathapuram Division and prays for the grant of bail till the disposal of the appeal.

(2.) BUT for the important question of law involved in this petition necessitating useful legal exercise, I do not propose to enter into the controversy in the midst of very many legal ratios held by the courts of law in this regard.

(3.) POINT: In so far as the merits of the appeal on factual or legal aspects are concerned, it cannot be decided in this petition. However, it is worthwhile to note at this stage, to say so, after the full trial, learned Sessions Judge, has found the petitioner guilty for the offences under the relevant provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotrophic substances Act as well as Customs Act and therefore, the judgment rendered by the learned trial Judge ex facie raises a presumption that the petitioner/accused has committed the offences and accordingly, he is convicted and sentenced to. Unless and until the appeal is heard on merits and disposed of, with the result of, for or against, it cannot be under law presumed, that the petitioner/appellant is innocent. It is this cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence with regard to the presumption of innocence emerged till the impugned judgment was delivered and that has now been changed in view of the judgment of conviction and sentence and that therefore, it can be safely presumed, till the disposal of the appeal, the petitioner/appellant has committed the offence as provided under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotrophic substances Act as well as Customs Act.