RESHAM @ PAPPU Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application has been moved under Section 389 read with section 482 CrPC for staying the conviction awarded by the trial Court.

(2.) The applicant-appellant was convicted by the trial Court vide judgment dated 8.11.2007 for offence under Section 18 of NDPS Act and was sentenced to RI for ten years with fine along with default clause. The appeal stands admitted vide order dated 10.12.2007 and recovery of fine was stayed. Thereafter, the applicant moved an application for suspension of sentence and his sentence was suspended vide order dated 12.12.2008.

(3.) Now the application for stay of conviction has been filed by raising various arguments that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the case, whereas, he was not involved. No independent witness was joined at the time of alleged recovery from the petitioner. And hence there is violation of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there are contradictions/discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses.