[2025:RJ-JP:35525] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 377/2025 Siyaram Son Of Shri Narayan, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Seva P.s. Wazirpur Distt. Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan) (Presently Confined At Central Jail Bharatpur) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anurag Sharma with Mr. Akshat Sharma Ms. Shreya Hatila Mr. Anoop Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jaiprakash Tiwari, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 04/09/2025 1. The applicant has been convicted by the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act Cases, Karauli vide judgment dated 30.01.2025 in Session Case No.39/2021 for the offence under Sections 8/21 of N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced for seven years Rigorous Imprisonment with default stipulation for recovery of 7 grams of illicit smack from his possession on 04.02.2021. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Public Prosecutor on the application for suspension of sentence and perused the material available on record. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant has submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial Court has convicted and [2025:RJ-JP:35525] (2 of 3) [SOSA-377/2025] sentenced the accused applicant on surmises and conjectures. He further submits that PW/1 Girdhari Singh, who is police witness has stated in cross examination that they have received prior information about the alleged offence then too provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act were not fully complied while search and arrest of the applicant, therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated. He contended that the applicant is in incarnation since last one and half years and disposal of the appeal will take considerable time, hence the suspension of sentence application of the applicant may be allowed and he may be released on bail. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the application for suspension of sentence by submitting that police has recovered the contraband from the applicant during patrolling only to which no prior information exists which is apparent from the statement of the Investigating Officer PW10 Dinesh Chand and other police officials, therefore, prior notice of Section 50 of NDPS Act was not mandatory. The learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the applicant after consideration of factual and legal aspects of the matter and has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned judgment. He contended that the petitioner is a habitual offender and has a criminal past of seven cases out of which two cases relate to same offence under NDPS Act. He drew the attention of the Court towards sentence undergone and submits that the applicant has not undergone substantial part of the sentence, therefore, his application for suspension of sentence deserves to be rejected. 5. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and in the backdrop of arguments advanced by the [2025:RJ-JP:35525] (3 of 3) [SOSA-377/2025] learned Public Prosecutor, insignificant period of sentence undergone by the applicant as well as criminal antecedents of the similar nature of cases, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am not inclined to suspend the sentence of the applicant-Siyaram Son Of Shri Narayan. 6. The application is accordingly dismissed. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J bmg/22