TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 570
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the respondent seeking suspension of sentence under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, "CrPC" has been allowed. 3 The respondent has been convicted of offences punishable under Sections 23(c) and 25A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985, "NDPS Act". He has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years in respect of the offence under Section 23(c) and for three years under the provisions of Section 25A, apart from fine. 4 Briefly stated, on 2 December 2015, the IO of the Narcotics Control Bureau, Delhi Zonal Unit received a phone call from DHL Courier that two parcels were lying in the office and were suspected to contain narcotic drugs. Accordingly, a team of the Narcotics C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther submitted that no investigation was made to arrest the consignor. He also submits that since the appeal is likely to take some time to come up for final hearing, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the appellant in jail till such time and prays that the appellant's sentence may be suspended during the pendency of the appeal." 6 The application was opposed on behalf of the Narcotics Control Bureau by the Senior Standing Counsel, who appeared to oppose the suspension of sentence. The High Court, while passing an order of suspension of sentence, indicated its reasons in paragraph 4 of the order, which reads as follows: "4. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and the period undergone by the appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing that he is not guilty of such offence" must apply a fortiori because the trial Court after conducting a trial has, on the basis of the evidence which is adduced, come to the conclusion that the offence has been established. In the present case, it was urged that absolutely no reasons have been indicated by the learned Single Judge of the High Court for granting bail, save and except for a vague reference to the "facts and circumstances" of the case, the period undergone by the respondent and the fact that the appeal was not likely to be taken for hearing in the near future due to the disruption caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. 8 On the other hand, Ms Nidhi, learned counsel appearing through the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail". Where the trial has ended in an order of conviction, the High Court, when a suspension of sentence is sought under Section 389(1) of CrPC, must be duly cognizant of the fact that a finding of guilt has been arrived at by the Trial Judge at the conclusion of the trial. This is not to say that the High Court is deprived of its power to suspend the sentence under Section 389(1) of CrPC. The High Court may do so for sufficient reasons which must have a bearing on the public policy underlying the incorporation of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. At this stage, we will refer to the decision of a two-Judge Bench of this Court in Preet Pal Singh v State of Uttar Pra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his Court and we may refer to the decision in State of Kerala v Rajesh (2020) 12 SCC 122. The High Court unfortunately, in the present case, has not applied its mind to the governing provisions of the NDPS Act. On the basis of the material which emerged before the learned Special Judge and which forms the basis of the order of conviction, we are of the view that no case for suspension of sentence under Section 389(1) of CrPC was established. The order granting suspension of sentence under Section 389(1) of CrPC is unsustainable and would accordingly have to be set aside. 11 While concluding, however, we hasten to add that our observations are confined to the question as to whether a case for suspension of sentence was made out and shall ....