Lakhwant Singh vs State of Punjab

M.L. Koul, J.

Notice to A.G. Punjab.

Mr. A.S. Grewal, AAG Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the State.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

I am conscious of the fact that for suspension of sentence in a case where any petitionerconvict stands convicted under some provisions of the NDPS Act the merits of the case are not to be discussed lest some opinion expressed in that regard may have some bearing on the merits of the case one way or the other.

No doubt any offence committed under the provisions of the NDPS Act is serious in nature for it eats up the very vitals of the society in the manner that a menace created by such antisocial element by providing the narcotic substances to our younger generation affects the very existence of the social fabric of the society and a day will come when the whole society will be totally aghast/marred and the existence of the people as a society/nation will be in danger. That being so even then the individual liberty of a man as enshrined in our Constitution and held to be paramount by the Apex Court of the country the High Court as a Court of appeal in the case pending disposal under the NDPS Act without mentioning the merits of the case has together the surrounding circumstances of each case for consideration with regard to suspension of sentence recorded against the accused where the poppy husk seized from such a person is of a small quantity upto 15 Kgs. and in such cases the convict might have spent atleast 3 or 4 years during the trial of the case or on conviction in jail and there is no likelihood that his appeal can be taken up for adjudication in near future and such people are entitled to bail and suspension of their sentences.

So in this concept of law and having regard to the natural justice as well it becomes essential that such people as described above are provided temporary retrieve of suspension of their sentences so that the whole sentence of ten years is not undergone by them without their appeals being heard by this Court and there is no likelihood that such appeals due to rush of work can be taken up for consideration in near future.

In the present case, the petitionerconvict has been arrested as far back as on 25th of November 1993 in Crime No. 152 registered by Police Station, Julkan against him and he on trial stands convicted on 3.8.1994 and is undergoing the sentence. In this way the petitioner has already undergone rigorous imprisonment for three years and the poppy husk seized from him is only 5 Kgs. I, therefore, feel in view of the above discussion that it is a fit case where the sentence can be suspended provided the petitioner submits bail bonds in the amount of Rs. 40,000/ with one surety and a personal recognizance bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala. However, it is impressed upon the learned counsel for the petitionerconvict that he shall see to it that the accused does not fall prey to further crime under the NDPS Act and if such an incident takes place his bail at random shall be rejected.