VARINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the first application under Sec. 389 Cr.P.C. praying for suspension of remaining sentence of the applicant-appellant during the pendency of the appeal.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has submitted that in the present case, the applicant-appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years in FIR no.258 dtd. 14/12/2015, registered under Sec. 22/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'NDPS Act') at Police Station Division no.5, Ludhiana and out of the said period, he has already undergone actual custody of 4 years 7 months and 5 days and out of which, the custody after conviction is 3 years and 11 days. It is submitted that the applicant-appellant is not involved in any other case of NDPS Act and there is only one case against the applicant-appellant which is under the Excise Act. It is further argued that the case of the applicant-appellant is squarely covered by the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Daler Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported as 2007 (1) RCR (Criminal) 316. It is further argued that the present applicant-appellant has several arguable points and thus, there is every possibility of success of the present appeal. It is argued that perusal of the recovery memo as well as the site plan, which were exhibited as Ex.PB and Ex.PE, respectively, would show that in fact the FIR number and other details of the FIR have been mentioned in both set of documents, i.e. the recovery memo and the site plan, whereas the said documents were stated to be prepared prior to the registration of the FIR. In order to substantiate the said argument, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal no.424 of 2009 titled as "Kamaljit Singh @ Pappu vs. State of Punjab" decided on 31/1/2019. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-

(3.) Further reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Didar Singh @ Dara vs. The State of Punjab, reported as 2010 (3) RCR (Criminal) 337, to contend that in such kind of a situation, only two inferences can be drawn that, either the FIR was registered prior to the alleged recovery of contraband or the number of the FIR has been inserted in the document after its registration and both situations seriously reflect upon the integrity of the prosecution version and the same is a serious lapse and creates doubt in the prosecution theory. The relevant part of aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-