KISHANLAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on I.A No.7701/2024 which is second application under Sec. 389(1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence filed on behalf of appellant.

(2.) The appellant has been convicted under Ss. 8/18(b) of NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo R.I for 10 years with fine of Rs.1,00,000.00 with default stipulation.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant submits that in the present case, mandatory provisions of Sec. 52 (A) of NDPS Act has not been complied with. He has referred the relevant Panchanama to prove the said fact that the sample was drawn by the investigating officer himself and not by the Magistrate. It is further argued that the sample drawn by the investigating officer was sent for FSL and the sample which has drawn before the Magistrate was not sent for FSL. Counsel for the appellant submits that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the cases of Simarnjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab passed in Criminal Appeal No.1443 of 2023 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.1958 of 2023) reported as (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 570); Mohammed Khalid and another Vs. The State of Telangana reported in (2024) 5 SCC 393; Yusuf @ Asif Vs. State passed in Criminal Appeal No.3191 of 2023 (Arising out of S.L.P. Crl.) No.3010 of 2023) dtd. 13/10/2023; and Union of India Vs. Mohanlaland another reported as (2016) 3 SCC 379 as the samples have not been drawn in accordance with Sec. 52-A of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short "the Act of 1985").