SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

S.D.JHA
Griraj – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhay Pradesh – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the parties:
For the Appellant - B. Pandya.
For the Respondent - G. Desai.

JUDGMENT

S.D. Jha, J. - Convict-appellant Giriraj (hereinafter called 'the accused') by judgment dated 13.9.1991 in S.T. No. 230 of 1990 delivered by the first Additional Sessions Judge Neemuch District Mandsaur has been convicted under section 8/18 of the Narcotics Drugs and Physchotrophic Substances Act 1985 (hereinafter called 'the Act') and sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of rupees one lac, in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for two years. By this application under section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter called 'the Code') read along with Section 36-B of the Act prays for suspension of execution of sentence and release on bail.

2. At the hearing of the application Shri Brijesh Pandya learned counsel for the accused, relying on order dated 25.3 .1991 in Rameshwar v. The State1 passed by a Single Judge of this Court (Hon. Shri M.W. Deo J.) submitted that inspite of newly introduced section 32-A in the Act, it was competent for this Court to order suspension of execution of sentence even in case of conviction for an offence other than under section 27 of the Act. For the same purpose

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top