Dismissed

Raja Ram v. Central Bureau of Narcotics

Rajasthan HC17 May 2024SOSA/36/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed second applications for suspension of sentence by accused persons convicted under the NDPS Act. The Court found no change of circumstances, held that evaluating evidence discrepancies like Section 52-A non-compliance was premature, and rejected the plea for long incarceration given the gravity of the offence and huge quantity of contraband.

What did the court decide?

Applications for suspension of sentence dismissed.

Raja Ram Vs Central Bureau of Narcotics — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:22900]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc 2^nd Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 607/2024

¶4

¶5

S.B. Criminal Appeal No.377/2022

¶6

Dashrath Singh S/o Shri Udai Singh, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Village Aardi, P.s. Narayangarh, Tehsil Malhargarh, Dist. Mandsaur, Madhyapradesh (Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur)

¶7

----Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

Central Bureau Of Narcotics, Chittorgarh, Through Special Public Prosecutor

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

Connected With

¶12

S.B. Criminal Misc 2^nd Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 36/2024 In

¶13

S.B. Criminal Appeal No.377/2022

¶14

Raja Ram S/o Shri Bhairu Mal Meghwal, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Pipaliya Jodha, P.s. Narayangarh, Tehsil Malhargarh, Dist. Mandsaur, Madhyapradesh. (Presently Lodged In Central Jail Udaipur).

¶15

2 Karu Das S/o Shri Heera Das Bairagi, Aged About 36 . Years, R/o Village Akyabika, P.s. Narayangarh, Tehsil Malhargarh, Dist. Mandsaur, Madhyapradesh. (Presently Lodged In Central Jail Udaipur).

¶16

----Petitioner

¶17

Versus

¶18

Central Bureau Of Narcotics, Chittorgarh Through Special Pp

¶19

----Respondents

¶20

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Birbal Ram
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	K.S. Nahar,Spl. PP

¶21

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶22

Order

¶23

17/05/2024

¶24

The instant second applications for suspension of sentence submitted on behalf of accused petitioners Dashrath Singh, Raja

[2024:RJ-JD:22900]

[SOSA-607/2024]

(2 of 4)

Ram and Karu Das. Their first applications for suspension of sentence being Applications No.1220/2022 & 1219/2022 were dismissed by this Court vide order dated 11.07.2023.

¶29

No change of circumstance has been shown for moving the instant applications for suspension of sentence. 3. Learned counsel submits that there has been a significant variation in the weight of the samples taken from the spot and samples which were sent to the FSL and this fact goes deep to the matter and casts a serious doubt over the fairness of the investigation. It is submitted that the original article was not deposited in Malkhana and there is no record to verify the fact that besides samples, the original ‘Maal’ was also deposited properly in the Malkhana. Serious objection with regard to noncompliance of 52-A of the NDPS Act has been raised. Besides the technical issues, ground of long incarceration has also been raised and thus prayed for acceptance of the applications for suspension of sentence.

¶30

Briefly stated the facts of the case without elaborated details would be that 15 Kg opium came to be recovered from the conscious possession of accused Raja Ram and Karu Das through, Shri M.K. Peepal, Inspector, Central Narcotic Bureau, who received a secret information regarding illegal transportation being done by the accused named above in a Swift Desire Car being registration No.RJ09-CA-9704. The vehicle was intercepted, both persons were arrested and huge quantity of opium juice came to be recovered. Accused-applicant Dashrath happens to be the registered owner of the vehicle. From over all consideration of the material available on record, this fact is prima facie proved that accused Karu Das

[2024:RJ-JD:22900]

[SOSA-607/2024]

(3 of 4)

and Raju Ram were carrying 15 Kg. Of opium with them in the car. The accused applicant Dashrath Singh, happens to be the registered owner of the vehicle and strong circumstances suggesting that he was having knowledge of transportation of contraband in his vehicle perhaps he permitted for doing so. The plea that he had sold the vehicle to co-accused Karu Das Bairagi, seems to be very flimsy and after thought because Ex.D-1, which is the sale note was executed on 11.06.2016. Looking to the short proximity between the sale and the recovery of the vehicle and the fact that for a long, the accused Dashrath Singh went absconded persuading this Court to infer that transportation of contraband was well within his knowledge. The plea that ‘ Maal’ (total contraband) was not deposited in Malkhana is not sustainable in view of Ex.P/29-A, which is the Malkhana register and having requisite entries of deposit of contraband.

¶35

The variance between weight and sample at the time of taking it from the spot and when it reached to the FSL cannot be considered at this stage, as doing appreciation on this count would be a final opinion and the same is not permissible pending appeal. Similar is the situation regarding collection of sample and its sending to the FSL and for that purpose, non-compliance of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act because if it is hold that the samples were not taken in compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, at this stage, then there would remain nothing to appreciate in the appeal on its final hearing. The plea that the accused are behind the bars since last seven years for serving an order of sentence of 15 years cannot be given weightage because this Court is always ready and willing to hear the appeal on merits but the counsel is

[2024:RJ-JD:22900]

[SOSA-607/2024]

(4 of 4)

not wiling to argue the matter finally. Even today, this Court has given him an opportunity to argue the appeal on merits so that there would be no occasion to give observation in the application regarding pendency of appeal but the learned counsel somehow declined to argue the appeal on its merits.

¶40

Looking to the huge quantity of recovered contraband and the direct nexus of the applicants-appellants with thereof, this Court feels reluctance to take a lenient view in accepting applications for suspension of sentence particularly, in view of the embargo contained under Sections 32-A & 37 of the NDPS Act. Prima facie, learned counsel has failed to satisfy this Court a reasonable ground for believing that the accused-appellants are not guilty of the alleged act and that the if released on bail they would not repeat commission of the offence of like nature.

¶41

In view of the express bar contained under Sections 32-A & 37 of the NDPS Act as also looking to the gravity of the offence and the huge quantity of the contraband, I do not feel it appropriate to accede the prayer made by the applicantsappellants particularly when their first bail applications for suspension of sentence has been already rejected by this Court. 8. Accordingly, there is no force in the instant applications for suspension of sentence, the same are hereby dismissed.

¶42

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶43

615-Mamta/-

Raja Ram v. Central Bureau of Narcotics

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raja Ram v. Central Bureau of Narcotics

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramnarayan Vs State of Rajasthan

Heena Kumari Vs State of Rajasthan

Homa @ Soma Vs State of Rajasthan

Nitin Nagar Vs State of Rajasthan

Ranaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Satbir Singh Vs State of Rajasthan