The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the accused appellants' application under Section 389 CrPC for suspension of sentence after conviction under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act. Relying on the large quantity of recovery and pending cases, the court refused relief without going into merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2025:RJ-JP:45846]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1603/2023
In
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 2999/2023
----Accused appellants
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
----Respondent
| For Appellants(s) | : Mr. Mazhar Hussain,Advocate |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Vivek Choudhary,DeptyGA |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order
14/11/2025
This suspension of sentence application has been filed by the accused appellants under Section 389 CrPC against the judgment and order dated 1.8.2023 passed by Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Kota (Rajasthan) in Special Sessions Case No. 1/2020, whereby while convicting the co-accused Bhagirath for the offence under Section 8/25 of NDPS Act, each of the accused appellant has been convicted for the offence U/s. 8/15(c) of NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment
(2 of 4) [SOSA-1603/2023]
[2025:RJ-JP:45846]
with a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 3 years’ rigorous imprisonment
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in the instant case, there was no independent witnesses in this matter. All and the recovery proceedings were not conducted at the site and rather they were conducted at the police station and that too not by the Gazetted Officer. He further submits that the samples taken before the Magistrate were not sent for FSL. He further submits that the recovery memo (Ex.-P/1) did not bear the signature of the accused appellants on each page. He further submits that in this case, mandatory provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with. The accused appellants are in custody for the past 6 years. They are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this matter, therefore, the sentence awarded to them by the trial court be suspended. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the following judgments:
[2025:RJ-JP:45846]
[SOSA-1603/2023]
(3 of 4)
Learned Dy. Government Advocate appearing for the State has opposed the same and submits that it is a case of chance recovery in a public place, thus there was no need to comply with the mandate of Section 50 of the NDPS Act.
He further submits that in this case, poppy husk (DodaChura) weighing 142 kms was recovered from the conscious possession of the appellants. They were acquainted with each other and & were not strangers inter-se.
The trial court on the basis of documentary evidence and the FSL report rightly convicted the accused appellants for the offence under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act and sentenced them to undergo 20 years rigorous imprisonment.
He further submits that in addition to the present case, one more case under NDPS Act was registered against accused appellant Sukhdev Choudhary, and one more case under 379 IPC was registered against accused appellant Mukesh, which are pending trial. The appellants have committed the offence under NDPS Act, which is a crime against society, because it has a devastating effect and a deadly impact on public health, the social fabric and the financial security of the nation. He further submits that if the sentence awarded to the accused appellants is suspended, there might be chances that the appellants would again indulge in similar type of crimes. Hence, the suspension of sentence application of the accused appellant be dismissed.
Taking into consideration the fact that 142 Kgs. DodaChura (poppy straw) was recovered from the conscious possession of the appellants, seizure memo (Ex.-P/1) and more particularly in view of the statement of witnesses PW-1, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6, PW-
[2025:RJ-JP:45846]
[SOSA-1603/2023]
(4 of 4)
7 and PW-8, without going into the merits and demerits of the case, I am not inclined to allow the suspension of sentence application of the accused appellants.
The suspension of sentence application of the accused appellants is hereby dismissed.
(BHUWAN GOYAL),J
DK/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the suspension of sentence should be granted to the appellants convicted under the NDPS Act?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Simanjit Singh v. State of PunjabReferred¶20
Simanjit Singh Versus State of Punjab passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1443 of 2023
Narcotics Control Bureau v. Lakhwinder SinghReferred¶21
Narcotics Control Bureau Versus Lakhwinder Singh passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 475 of 2025
Narayan v. State of RajasthanReferred¶22
Narayan Versus State of Rajasthan passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1601/2023
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sukhdev Choudhary
Mukesh
State Of Rajasthan
BHUWAN GOYAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
