RATAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-applicant has preferred this second application under Sec. 389 Cr.P.C. seeking suspension of sentence handed down by the Special Judge, NDPS Cases No. 1, Chittorgarh (for short, ‘learned trial Court') in Sessions Case No. 7/2008. Learned trial Court by the impugned judgment indicted the appellant for offence under Sec. 8 read with Sec. 15(c) of the NDPS Act and awarded sentence of ten years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1.00 lakh. In default of payment of fine to undergo sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) Instant appeal is pending since 2017. First application for suspension of sentence laid on behalf of appellant was nixed by this Court on 20th of April 2018 as not pressed.

(3.) Pressing this second application for suspension of sentence, learned counsel for the appellant has essentially harped on prolonged custody of the appellant as according to him, appellant has served sentence of more than four years out of total sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment. It is also urged by learned counsel that Seizure Officer, while drawing samples of the contraband (poppy straw), has resorted to an absolutely laconic method inasmuch as the entire bulk of contraband weighing 194 Kg stuffed in eight sacs and one plastic bag was mixed and then from that mixture of entire bulk, two samples of 1 Kg were drawn. It is also argued by learned counsel that the method of drawing samples has substantially reduced the chances of appellant's conviction under Sec. 8 read with Sec. 15(c) of the NDPS Act but that aspect is completely overlooked by learned trial Court while passing the impugned judgment. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on Netram v. State of Rajasthan [ 2014 (2) WLN 394 (Raj.). It is also submitted by learned counsel that in view of serious lacuna in drawal of samples, it is a fit case wherein Court can very well record its satisfaction about requirement of Sec. 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act at this stage because sustainability of appellant's conviction for offence under Sec. 8 read with Sec. 15(c) per se appears under serious cloud. Learned counsel would urge that there is no minimum sentence prescribed for offence under Sec. 8 read with Sec. 15(b) under the NDPS Act.