[2025:RJ-JP:2579] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc 2nd Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 2434/2024 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1463/2022 Ghanshyam Sharma S/o Ramkaran Sharma, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Village Kundal Ps Kolwa, District Dausa, Present Address House No. 2, Gopal Vihar Colony, Pilli Ki Talai, Amer, Ps Amer, Jaipur (At Present Lodged In Central Jail Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajastahn, R/o ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H.C. Ganeshia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 17/01/2025 1. Instant SOS application is preferred by appellant-accused in pending appeal admitted on 06.08.2024, filed aggrieved from judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.03.2022 in Sessions Case No. 06/2018 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Jaipur Metro-I, whereby the accused was convicted under Section 8/21 of NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 years with fine of ₹1,50,000/-. 2. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that appellant is an innocent person and he was falsely implicated by Drug Inspector. He further submitted that out of total punishment of 15 years the [2025:RJ-JP:2579] (2 of 4) [SOSA-2434/2024] appellant has already undergone more than 1/3rd of total sentence. He further submitted that appellant is sole bread-earner of his family and he is first time offender therefore he is entitled to be released on bail. He further relied upon judgment of Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Chetan Prakash Nankani Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Application for Suspension of Sentence No.378/2024 order dated 18.12.2024) and submitted that on non-compliance of Section 52A of NDPS Act, SOS application was allowed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and he also submitted custody certificate and same is taken on record. 4. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record. 5. After conviction and sentence on 30.03.2022 in sessions case No.06/2018 an appeal was preferred by present appellant and same was admitted for consideration by this Court. First SOS application was considered and dismissed on 24.09.2024. At the time of consideration of SOS we have considered non-compliance of provision under NDPS Act and after considering the grounds as raised we have dismissed the first SOS application and further observed that the appellant has already served sentence of more than 4 years 10 months 18 days. Now the period of sentence is more than 5 years 1 month which is more than 1/3rd of total sentence awarded by the trial court. 6. A perusal of material placed on record clearly indicated that the recovered quantity was commercial and compliance and [2025:RJ-JP:2579] (3 of 4) [SOSA-2434/2024] satisfaction of Section 37 of NDPS Act is must before considering SOS in the instant matter and after considering the provision of Section 37 of NDPS Act in previous order we have ruled against the present appellant. 7. In case of Chetan Prakash Nankani Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has granted SOS after considering non-compliance of Section 52A of NDPS Act in light of judgment in case of Union of India Vs. Mohan Lal and Another 2016 3 SCC 379. 8. In case of Bharat Aambale Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh 2025 INSC 78 Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered judgment in case of Union of India Vs. Mohan Lal (supra) and Section 52A of NDPS Act and observed that only a substantial compliance of procedure is actually required and any discrepancy or deviation in the same may lead to the court to draw an adverse inference against the police as per facts of each and every case. The courts were cautioned not to be hyper- technical while looking into discrepancies that may exist, like slight difference in the weight, color or numbering of sample etc. The purpose of Section 52 A NDPS is for disposal and destruction of seized contraband in a safe manner and there is no mandate that drawing of sample from the seized substance must take place at the time of seizure, yet the process of inventory photograph and drawing sample of seized substance shall take place in presence of accused. 9. Having considered the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Bharat Aambale Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh [2025:RJ-JP:2579] (4 of 4) [SOSA-2434/2024] (supra) the appellant is not entitled for benefit of SOS order dated 18.12.2024 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 10. After considering the material on record and also the fact that a commercial quantity of contraband was seized against the appellant, he is not entitled to be released on bail on ground of completion of 1/3rd of sentence. 11. Accordingly, second SOS application is hereby dismissed. Misc. application stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /05