Section 32a of the NDPS Act creates a bar to the High Court's power to suspend the sentence and release a convict on bail pending disposal of an appeal.

( 1 ) THE applicant appellant stands convicted of the offence u/s. 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (for short, the NDPS Act) and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment plus fine of Rs. 1,00,000/ -. He has prayed for suspension of his sentence and release on interim bail u/s. 389 read with S. 482, Cr. P. C. on the ground of the marriage of his son which is allegedly going to be solemenized on May 13, 1996. Earlier a similar prayer was made by him on the ground of the illness of his wife but was not accepted on 21-8-95 as the application was not pressed.

( 2 ) OPPOSING the prayer of the applicant for suspension of the sentence passed against him and his release on bail even for a short period the learned public prosecutor urged that the provisions contained in S. 32a of the NDPS Act creates it bar for this Court in exercising its powers in the matter of granting suspension of sentence and bail pending disposal of the appeal by the applicant. In this behalf the learned Public Prosecutor relied upon, the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Anwar v. State (1994) 2 WLC (Raj) 159 : (1994 Cri LJ NOC 414), wherein it was held that S. 32a of the NDPS Act creates a bar to suspension of sentence and release of a convict on bail or parole in such matters. Reliance in this behalf was also placed on the cases of Ishwar Singh Rajput v. State of Gujarat (1991) 2 Crimes 160 (Guj), Berlin Joseph v. State 1992 Crimes 353 (Ker) (FB) and Sita Singh v. State of Punjab 1995 Cri LJ 1733 (Punj and Har) wherein the same view as taken by this Court in Anwars case (supra) was taken.

( 3 ) MR. S. R. Bajwa, the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant, however, submitted that S. 32a of the NDPS Act is not a bar for the High Court exercising its powers in the matter of granting suspension of sentence and bail pending disposal of an appeal by a convict. The learned counsel added that the power of suspension u/s. 389, Cr. P. C. are preserved by S. 36b of the NDPS Act and Section 32a refers only to the powers of the Government to suspend, remit or commute a sentence which powers do not vest in courts. In support of this view Mr. Bajwa relied upon the case of Oliver Fernando P. T. v. Asstt. Collector of Madras, 1990 Drugs Cases 362.

( 4 ) REGARDING the D. B. decision of this Court in Anwars case (1994 Cri LJ NOC 414) (supra) Mr. Bajwa submitted that since that case was not decided with reference to the provisions contained in S. 36a of NDPS Act and other relevant provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Code) and the Constitution of India, the same was not a good law and hence not binding on this Bench. At any rate, the contrary view expressed by the Madras High Court in Oliver Fernandos case (supra) and the Delhi High Court in the case of Amarjit Singh and Prem Prakash v. State (Delhi Administration) (1993) 2 Rec Cri R 466, contended Mr. Bajwa, justifies a reference on the question on and in the present case to a larger Bench of this Court. In this behalf Mr. Bajwa referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Tribhawan Puroshottam Das Thakker v. Rati Lal, AIR 1968 SC 372 and M/s. Ujagar Prints v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 874. In the end the learned Counsel submitted that looking to the incoming marriage of the son of the applicant the Court should adopt a humanistic approach and release him on parole or furlough for a few days.

( 5 ) THE issue raised in this petition in fact stands squarely covered in favour of State by the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Anwar Ali (1994 Cri LJ NOC 414) (supra ). Therefore, it is not necessary for this Bench to enter into any detailed and analytical study of the different provisions of various statutes in order to conclude that the view taken by the Division Bench was correct or not. Judicial discipline requires that a single Bench should not only regard but also must pay maximum respect to the de