ORDER :

Farjand Ali, J.

The instant application for suspension of sentence has been moved on behalf of the applicant in the matter of judgment dated 21.01.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act cases, Jaisalmer in Sessions Case No.37/2020 whereby he was convicted and sentenced to suffer maximum imprisonment of 15 years under Sections 8 /21 and 8/22 of NDPS Act.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has falsely been implicated in this matter, he has nothing to do with the alleged offence. There is a major contradiction in the forwarding letter No. 825 (Ex. P-17) which was sent to FSL, Jodhpur and the FSL Report dated 31.12.2020 (Ex. P-21) wherein the number of forwarding letter sent by SP, Jaisalmer is mentioned as 824 instead of 825. There are several flaws and latches in the case of the prosecution. The mandatory provision has not complied with stricto-sensu. Likewise, serious questions have been raised with regard to the compliance of Section 42 of the Act, which is mandatory in nature. Thus, there is a serious discrepancy which goes to the root of the case and casts a serious doubt in the story of the prosecution and veracity of the statement of the prosecution witness. As the hearing of the appeal will take long time to conclude, therefore, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the sentence awarded to the accused-appellants may be suspended.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the accused-appellants and submits that the matter pertains to recovery of 2.720 kilogram of TRICORE-SR tablets and the judgment of conviction passed by learned Court below does not warrant any interference. The impediment contained under Sections 32 -A and 37 of NDPS, Act will be attracted in the factual situation of the present case.

4. Heard and perused the material available on record as well as gone through the statutory provisions applicable in the matter.

5. The prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond every shadow of reasonable doubt as it has not been proved that the information under Section 42 (2) of NDPS Act was properly supplied to the superior officer. There is no evidence on record to corroborate the fact that the information under Section 42 of NDPS Act was received by the superior officer and no other document has been produced to show the compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act which is mandatory in nature.

6. The submission of the learned counsel for the accused-appellant regarding inconsistency in the record of the forwarding letter seems to be worth considering. A perusal of Exhibit P-17 which is the forwarding letter sent by the S.P., Jaisalmer to the FSL, Jodhpur reveals that the letter is numbered as 825 whereas if the FSL Report is looked at, the letter no. is recorded as 824. It is manifesting from the FIR as well as the impugned order passed by the trial judge that when the investigating agency apprehended the accused-appellant, they were on their way back after conducting a raid under NDPS Act at a shop nearby, thus, a safe inference can be drawn that there were two seizures conducted back to back by the same Police team on that particular day within a short time period one at Police Station Nachna pertaining to FIR No. 06/2020 and this one pertaining to Police Station Mohangarh of the same district. Moreover, it is further revealed from the FIR that there was yet another case wherein contraband was recovered by the police on the very same day, just before the two, afore-mentioned seizures were made, thus, there is strong possibility that there was a mi