Prolonged custody and delayed appeal can justify suspension of sentence in NDPS cases despite prior convictions.

Prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay in hearing an appeal can justify suspension of the remaining sentence under Section 389 CrPC, even in NDPS matters, because the right to speedy justice under Article 21 remains relevant after conviction. Post-conviction suspension is exceptional, but long custody, delay not attributable to the convict, and the risk of indefinite imprisonment are material factors. Prior convictions are relevant to the discretion, yet they do not create an absolute bar where substantial sentence has already been undergone and early hearing is unlikely. On those considerations, the appellant was granted suspension of sentence and release on bail.

---

---

Issues: Whether the remaining sentence of a convict under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 could be suspended under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the ground of prolonged incarceration and delay in hearing of the appeal, despite prior convictions.

Analysis: The right to speedy trial and expeditious disposal of an appeal flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and in appropriate cases a delayed appeal can justify suspension of sentence. The guiding principles in narcotics cases recognise that post-conviction relief is exceptional, but long custody, non-disposal of the appeal for reasons not attributable to the convict, and the need to prevent indefinite incarceration are relevant considerations. Prior convictions are a material factor, but they do not create an absolute bar where the convict has already undergone a substantial part of the sentence and the appeal is unlikely to be heard soon.

Conclusion: The Court held that the appellant was entitled to suspension of the remaining sentence and release on bail.

---