Sarwan Kumar and Another vs State of Punjab

S.S. Saron, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Custody certificate of applicant-Sarwan Kumar (appellant No. 1) filed in Court today is taken on record.

The applicant-appellant has been convicted for the offence u/s 15 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years; besides, to pay a fine of Rs. 1 Lac and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. He has also been sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence u/s 468 IPC. Besides, he has been sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence u/s 471 IPC. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

In terms of the custody certificate filed in Court today, the appellant-applicant Sarwan Kumar has undergone imprisonment for 4 years, 6 months and 19 days as on 27.1.2010.

The applicant-appellant has also been convicted in another case u/s 407 IPC vide order dated 14.12.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar.

The hearing in the appeal is likely to take time. The applicant-appellant was apprehended with 190 Kgs. of poppy husk. The sentence of fine was suspended at the time of admission of appeal on 17.7.2006. There are arguable points in the appeal which would require consideration. The case of the appellant-applicant is that he was not in conscious possession of the contraband and he did not run away on seeing the Police party. Besides, the link evidence is stated to be missing. Besides, the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with.

A Division Bench of this Court in Daler Singh v. State of Punjab 2007 (1) RCR (Cr.) 316 has held that where the convict is sentenced for ten years for having in his conscious possession commercial quantity of contraband, he shall be entitled to bail if he has already undergone a total sentence of four years which must include at least 15 months after conviction. The aforesaid guide-lines as laid down by the Division Bench have been fully met in the present case. Besides, the Constitutional mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees a right of speedy trial by the State of persons accused of an offence. An appeal is only an extension of the trial. Therefore, the Courts are obliged to ensure expeditious disposal of the appeals or pass appropriate orders as and when they feel that the right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India is infringed. The present appeal is not likely to mature for hearing in the near future. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case as also the period undergone by the applicant, it would be just and expedient to suspend his sentence of imprisonment.

In the circumstances, the criminal miscellaneous application is allowed and the sentence of imprisonment of the applicant-appellant No. 1 Sarwan Kumar shall remain suspended during the pendency of the appeal subject to his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala.