Non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act can undermine the prosecution's case, warranting a thorough re-assessment of evidence by the appellate court.

ORDER :

1. The instant applications for suspension of sentences have been moved on behalf of the applicants. They are convicted by the judgment dated 31.01.2025 by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases Sirohi in Special Case No.78/2019 whereby they were sentenced as under:-

2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the learned trial Judge has not appreciated the correct, legal and factual aspects of the matter and thus, reached at an erroneous conclusion of guilt, therefore, the same is required to be appreciated again by this court being the first appellate Court. Hearing of the appeal is likely to take long time, therefore, the application for suspension of sentence may be granted.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the accused-appellants.

4. Perusal of the record reflects that on 02.03.2019 upon receiving a secret information SHO PS Revdar intercepted an unnumbered tractor and upon interrogation the driver of the vehicle disclosed his names as Om Prakash and during search of the vehicle, 147 kg Poppy Husk got recovered. After search and seizure both the accused was arrested and a case under the NDPS Act got registered and he disclosed that he has purchased the contraband from Raju Mewari and Bagrang Lal. However, serious issues have been raised regarding non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. During trial, appellants Raju and Bajrang Lal were on bail.

5. This Court, being the first appellate court, is required to reassess the entire evidence, particularly in light of the alleged procedural lapses which, if proved, may go to the root of the prosecution case. It is well settled that non-compliance with mandatory provisions under the NDPS Act can vitiate the very foundation of seizure and recovery.

6. Considering the overall submissions of the parties and looking to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case while refraining from passing any comments on the niceties of the matter and the fact that the appellant Om Prakash is in custody since his arrest and appellants Raju and Bajrang Lal were on bail during trial and in view of the legal issues raised and the requirement of thorough re-appreciation of evidence, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for suspending the sentence awarded to the accused-appellants.

7. Accordingly, the applications for suspension of sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is ordered that the sentence passed by learned trial court, the details of which are provided in the first para of this order, against the appellant-applicants named above shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeals and they shall be released on bail provided each of them executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance in this court on 09.06.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

1. That they will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.

2. That if the applicants change the place of residence, they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court as well as to their counsel(s) in the High Court.

3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.

The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicants in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to origin