PARAMANANTHAN YOGANATHAM Vs. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition is filed seeking suspension of sentence and also grant of bail.

(2.) THE petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/= in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for offences punishable under sections 29, 8(c) read with 21(c) and 28 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

(3.) LEARNED Special Public Prosecutor for NCB would submit that only when the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of any of the offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and that he is not likely to commit any such offences while on bail, the application seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail can be considered under section 32-A read with section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Trial Court, having adverted to the voluminous evidence available on record, has come to a definite conclusion that the accused has committed the offence. Nothing is brought out to shake the belief of the court that the petitioner has committed the offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The seizure of the contraband was established before the Trial Court. The non-examination of the British Airways officials cannot be a ground to reject the voluminous evidence pointing to the guilt of the accused. The Trial Court has before recording conviction deliberated upon all submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused as regards the alleged discrepancy in the colour of the suitcase which contained the contraband and the alleged delay in despatching the material object to the chemical analyst. It is his further submission that a time frame may be fixed for the disposal of the main criminal appeal itself considering the long incarceration of the petitioner.