GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant-applicant Gurcharan Singh by way of this application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. seeks the suspension of sentence of imprisonment. THE learned Special Judge, Jind vide order dated 19.12.2001 sentenced the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 Lac for having committed an offence under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. At the time of admission of the appeal on 7.5.2002 the recovery of fine was stayed. On a raid conducted by the Police party under the charge of Cr. Misc. No.3040/2007 in Cr. Appeal No.310-SB/2002 ASI Daya Nand, Police Station Safidon on 5.6.2000 two bags of poppy husk were recovered on the basis of disclosure statement made by the appellant. Each of the bag was found to contain 39 Kgs. poppy husk. Two samples weighing 250 Grams each from each of the bag was taken. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant has submitted that the appellant-applicant is in custody from the date of his conviction on 19.12.2001. He has undergone five and half years of imprisonment including the under-trial period. It is submitted that the appeal is not likely to mature for hearing in the near future. THErefore, the sentence of imprisonment of the appellant-applicant may be suspended in the light of the observations of the Division Bench of this Court in Daler Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007 (1) RCR (Cr.) 316.

(2.) IN response, learned counsel for the State has submitted affidavit dated 15.3.2007 of the Superintendent District Jail, Jind which gives the detail of imprisonment undergone by the appellant-applicant. IN terms of the said details the appellant-applicant has undergone more than five years of sentence as on 15.3.2007. Besides the appellant-applicant has availed 50 weeks of parole during this period. It is, however, submitted that the appellant-applicant is not entitled to have sentence of imprisonment suspended in view of the proved case against him. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. The appellant-applicant indeed has undergone five years of sentence after his conviction. IN Daler Singh's case (supra) it was inter alia held by this Court that where the convict is sentenced for ten years for having in his conscious possession of commercial quantity of the contraband, he shall be entitled to bail if he has already undergone a total sentence of four years which must include at least 15 months after conviction. The said guide-lines have admittedly been met in the present case. The appeal is also not likely to mature for hearing in the near future. Article 21 of the Constitution of INdia inter alia provides for a right of speedy trial to an accused which includes right to hearing of the appeal expeditiously. The appeal is only an extension of the trial. The Court, therefore, in an appropriate case is obliged to ensure expeditious disposal of the appeal or pass other necessary appropriate orders as and when it is felt that the right of the convict to the guarantee provided under Article 21 has been infringed. The appellant-applicant has admittedly undergone more than five years of sentence. There are arguable points in the appeal which are to be considered at the time of final disposal. IN the circumstances, it would be inappropriate to keep him incarcerated further. Keeping in view the aforesaid position, the criminal miscellaneous application is allowed. The sentence of imprisonment of the appellant-applicant during the pendency of the appeal shall remain suspended subject to his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind.