DINESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor on application under Section 389 Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant states that only 10 grams Smack is said to have been recovered from the appellant, which is below commercial quantity. The appellant is not habitual offender. He was on bail during the course of trial. It is also contended by learned counsel that as per Exhibit-P/6, the recovery was made at 4:10 PM on 24.9.2005 whereas notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was given at 4:15 PM, therefore, it cannot be said that compliance of provisions under Section 50 of the NDPS Act has been made. In last, he prays that accused-appellant has arguable case and hearing of the appeal will take time, therefore, the sentence awarded to the accusedappellant may be suspended during the pendency of the appeal. He will not misuse the bail.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor opposed this application seeking suspension of sentence and stated that from the evidence, it appears that notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was given, thereafter the alleged recovery was done. He prays that looking to the nature of offence, the sentence awarded to the accused-appellant may not be suspended.