Hanumana Ram vs State Of Rajasthan

Accused-applicant has preferred this third application seeking suspension of sentence awarded by Special Judge, NDPS Cases No.2, Chittorgarh (for

short, ‘learned trial Court’) by its judgment dated 3rd of April, 2018.

Learned trial Court, by the impugned judgment, indicted applicant for offence under Section 8 read with Section 15 of the NDPS Act and handed

down sentence of twelve years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2 lacs and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo two years’

rigorous imprisonment. Likewise, applicant is also convicted for offence under Section 7 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced for five

years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo sentence for six months’ rigorous

imprisonment.

First application for suspension of sentence was dismissed as not pressed on 16th of April, 2018 followed by second on 2nd of August, 2018 with

liberty to renew prayer after four weeks.

Arguing on this third application for suspension of sentence, learned counsel, Mr. Bishnoi, submits that applicant has already remained in custody for

almost three and half years and hearing of the appeal in near future is not possible. It is argued by learned counsel that learned trial Court has not at all

cared to examine laconic procedure adopted by Seizure Officer while drawing samples of contraband. It is also argued by learned counsel that out of

seven plastic bags containing total 195 kgs. poppy straw, 200 gms. was collected from each one and thereafter same was mixed for drawl of two

samples. It is further submitted by learned counsel that this sort of procedure adopted by the Seizure Officer is contrary to Instruction No.1/88 issued

by the Narcotics Control Bureau. Learned counsel would urge that the patent lacuna by the Seizure Officer has direct ramification on the gravity of

the offence allegedly committed by applicant but this aspect has been completely eschewed by the learned trial Court while handing down maximum

sentence of twelve years for the charged offence under Section 8 read with Section 15 of the NDPS Act. In support of his argument, learned counsel

has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Netram V/s. State of Rajasthan [2014 (2) WLN 394 (Raj.)].

Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the application for suspension of sentence.

However, learned Public Prosecutor has very candidly submitted that there was some flaw in drawl of samples by the Seizure Officer.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the flaw in drawl of samples and the fact that applicant has already served

sentence for almost three and half years, while refraining to make any comment, I feel persuaded to accept this third application for suspension of

sentence.

Accordingly, the third application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by

learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases No.2, Chittorgarh, vide judgment dated 03.04.2018, in Sessions Case No.57/2017 (42/2016), against appellant-

applicant, Hanumana Ram S/o Kishnaram Vishnoi, shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail

subject to the condition that he deposits 50% of fine amount imposed by learned trial Court within four weeks from today and also furnishes a personal

bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this Court on

19.07.2019 and whenever ordered to do so till disposal of the appeal, on the conditions indicated below:-

That he will appear before the trial Court in the month of January every year till the appeal is decided.

That if the applicant changes the place of residence, he will give in writing his changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the

High Court.

Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.

The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of accused-applicant in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case

related to original case in which the accused-applicant was tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready

reference. Criminal Misc. file shall not be taken into account for statistical purposes relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial Court. In

case the said accused applicant does not appear before the trial Court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation

of bail.