IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretion of the appellate court to suspend the sentence pending appeal, the conditions for such suspension, and the practical reasons for delay in hearing the appeal.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 389 Cr.P.C. praying to suspend the execution of the judgment dated 17.12.2020 and order of sentence dated 28.12.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, Manipur in Special Trial Case No.100 of 2018 till the disposal of the appeal and to grant bail to the petitioner.

2. The petitioner, who has been arrayed as accused No.2 in Special Trial Case No.100 of 2018 on the file of the learned Special Judge, ND&PS, Manipur at Lamphelpat was convicted under Sections 21(c)/22(c) and Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [for short, 'the said Act'] and sentenced to undergo 15 years rigorous imprisonment each and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each to be paid within a period of one year from the date of sentence, failing which the petitioner shall serve another six months rigorous imprisonment. Challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner, he has filed the criminal appeal before this Court.

3. Along with the appeal, the petitioner has filed the petition seeking to suspend the sentence stating that he has a very good case on merits and likely to succeed in the appeal filed by him on the ground that the mandatory provisions as prescribed under the said Act were not complied with by the prosecution.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are lot of infirmities in the impugned judgment and that the petitioner has good case on merits in succeeding the appeal. He would submit that the petitioner was aged 19 years at the time of the alleged occurrence and he was released on bail by this Court on 19.8.2020 and while he was on bail, he did not attempt to abscond or tamper with any prosecution witnesses to hamper the trial.

5. The learned counsel further submitted that the appeal would not be taken up for hearing in the near future and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to suspension of sentence and for bail pending appeal and that the petitioner undertakes to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court.

6. The learned counsel then submitted that Section 32- A of the said Act so far as it ousts the jurisdiction of the Court to suspend the sentence imposed on a convict under the Act is unconstitutional and that when a convicted person is sentenced to a fixed period of sentence and when the convict files an appeal under any statutory right, suspension of sentence can be considered by the appellate Court liberally unless there are exceptional circumstances.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the petitioner was on bail during trial and he had fully co-operated in the trial by putting his personal appearance in all the hearing dates fixed by the learned Special Judge and he never violated any terms and conditions of his releasing on bail during the whole proceedings of the trial. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that detention of the petitioner during pendency of the appeal is a severe punishment to all his family members and thus prays for suspension of sentence pending appeal.

8. Per contra, Mr. H. Samarjit, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to suspension of sentence, as it is barred by Section 32-A of the Act. He would submit that since the petitioner was convicted under Sections 21(c)/22(c) read with Section 29 of the said Act and sentenced to undergo 15 years of rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine, he is not entitled to suspension of sentence. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the High Court cannot override the bar provided under Section 32-A of the Act and that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of Section 389 Cr.P.C. and therefore, the benefit cannot be extended to him.

9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor then submitted that the Investigating Officer has examined number of witnesses in connection with the case and from their oral evidences and the documents produc