RAJAMAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant appellant stands convicted of the offence u/S. 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (for short, 'the NDPS Act') and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment plus fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. He has prayed for suspension of his sentence and release on interim bail u/s. 389 read with S. 482, Cr. P.C. on the ground of the marriage of his son which is allegedly going to be solemenized on May 13, 1996. Earlier a similar prayer was made by him on the ground of the illness of his wife but was not accepted on 21-8-95 as the application was not pressed.

(2.) Opposing the prayer of the applicant for suspension of the sentence passed against him and his release on bail even for a short period the learned public prosecutor urged that the provisions contained in S. 32A of the NDPS Act creates it bar for this Court in exercising its powers in the matter of granting suspension of sentence and bail pending disposal of the appeal by the applicant. In this behalf the learned Public Prosecutor relied upon, the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Anwar v. State (1994) 2 WLC (Raj) 159 : (1994 Cri LJ NOC 414), wherein it was held that S. 32A of the NDPS Act creates a bar to suspension of sentence and release of a convict on bail or parole in such matters. Reliance in this behalf was also placed on the cases of Ishwar Singh Rajput v. State of Gujarat (1991) 2 Crimes 160 (Guj), Berlin Joseph v. State 1992 Crimes 353 (Ker) (FB) and Sita Singh v. State of Punjab 1995 Cri LJ 1733 (Punj and Har) wherein the same view as taken by this Court in Anwar's case (supra) was taken.

(3.) Mr. S. R. Bajwa, the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant, however, submitted that S. 32A of the NDPS Act is not a bar for the High Court exercising its powers in the matter of granting suspension of sentence and bail pending disposal of an appeal by a convict. The learned counsel added that the power of suspension u/S. 389, Cr. P.C. are preserved by S. 36B of the NDPS Act and Section 32A refers only to the powers of the Government to suspend, remit or commute a sentence which powers do not vest in courts. In support of this view Mr. Bajwa relied upon the case of Oliver Fernando P. T. v. Asstt. Collector of Madras, 1990 Drugs Cases 362.