Defective sampling in seizure cases can justify suspension of sentence pending appeal where compliance is not meaningful.

Defective sampling in narcotics seizure can justify suspension of sentence pending appeal where the sample is not shown to be a true representative sample and the Standing Orders on seizure and sampling are not meaningfully complied with. The Court noted that contents of two separately recovered packets were mixed before sampling, the results of both samples were not fully on record, and the sampling process was central to proving the nature and quantity of the substance. It also considered that the appellant had already undergone more than half of the sentence and that the appeal was unlikely to be heard soon. On these facts, sentence suspension pending appeal was granted, with bail during the pendency of the appeal subject to conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to suspension of sentence pending appeal in view of the alleged defective sampling procedure, non-compliance with the Standing Orders governing seizure and sampling, and the substantial period of custody already undergone.

Analysis: The application turned on whether the sample drawn from the seized substance could be treated as a true representative sample. The record indicated that the contents of two separately recovered packets were mixed before sampling, and the results of both samples were not fully placed on record. The Standing Orders governing seizure and sampling were treated as serving an important evidentiary purpose and as requiring meaningful compliance, since the sampling process is central to establishing the nature and quantity of the recovered substance. The Court also considered that the appellant had already undergone more than half of the awarded sentence and that the appeal was unlikely to be heard expeditiously. In these circumstances, the sampling irregularity furnished a substantial ground to consider suspension of sentence at the interlocutory stage.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to suspension of sentence pending disposal of the appeal.

Final Conclusion: The sentence was suspended and the appellant was enlarged on bail during the pendency of the appeal, subject to conditions.

---