THAKRA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for both the parties on the application for suspension of sentence.

(2.) Learned counsel for the accused-applicant contended that there is variance in the weigh of contraband sealed at the time of taking sample as well as sample received at Forensic Science Laboratory. It is further contended that the recovery of contraband in the present case was made by the Sub-Inspector, who was not an authorised officer, therefore, entire proceedings are vitiated and in support of his contention, he referred Roy V.D. v. State of Kerala, reported in 2001 Cr.L.J. page 165 : 2001 Cr.L.R. (SC) 54 (Supreme Court) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court even quashed the charge on this ground.

(3.) So far as the contention relating to authorisation of the Sub-Inspector is concerned, the same has been dealt with by the trial Court and finding has been recorded that the recovery officer in the present case was holding the charge of S.H.O. at the relevant time and he was an authorised officer, however, after considering all the facts and circumstances of the present case, including the quantity of contraband, the period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant and further that the disposal of the appeal is likely to take some time, I think it fit and proper in the interest of justice to suspend the sentence of imprisonment of the accused-appellant awarded by the Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act Cases (Additional Sessions Judge No. 1) Kota, vide judgment and order dated 31.3.2006 in Sessions Case No. 23/2005.