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

1991 Supreme(Ker) 219

PAREED PILLAY, BALAKRISHNAN
Phasila – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent


Judgment :-

Pareed Pillay, J.

The short question that arises foe consideration is whether an accused who is tainted and sentenced under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, S5 (for short 'the N.D.P.S. act) other than under S.27 is entitled to suspension of intense pending appeal.

2. Contention of the petitioners is that under S.389 of the Code of Criminal judiciary this Court has wide powers to suspend the sentence under the N.D.P.S. Act ring the pendency of the appeal not-withstanding S.32-A of the Act. S.389(1) wades that pending any appeal by a convicted person, the Appellate Court may, for icons to be recorded by it in writing, order that the execution of the sentence or order pealed against be suspended and, also if he is in confinement, that he may be released bail or on his own bond. Counsel pointed out that S.37 of the N.D.P.S. Act has no placation to a case where the accused has already been convicted and when he files appeal and moves for suspension of the sentence. S.37(1)(b) postulates notice to : Public Prosecutor on any motion for bail. S.37(1)(b)(ii) provides that after giving twice to the Public Prosecutor bail can be granted if Court is satisfied that






























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