Sentence may be suspended pending appeal where prolonged delay makes early appellate hearing unlikely.

The applicants, Bal Krishan and Shyam Singh, were convicted by the Special Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division, Rampur Bushahr, in FIR No. 65 of 2022, Police Station Anni, for offences under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).

By judgment and order dated 27.09.2024, each applicant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of ₹1,00,000 for the offence under Section 20, and a further ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of ₹1,00,000 for the offence under Section 29, with default sentences of one year’s simple imprisonment for each fine.

Pending their respective criminal appeals, the applicants sought suspension of sentence.

The State contended that these discrepancies were either inadvertent or inconsequential and that the prosecution evidence sufficiently connected the applicants with the contraband.

Whether the substantive sentences imposed upon the applicants should be suspended during the pendency of their criminal appeals, particularly when the appeals were unlikely to be heard in the near future?

Whether the discrepancies alleged regarding the chain of custody, seals, photographs, description of the contraband, and contemporaneous police records justified suspension of sentence at the appellate stage?

The Court considered the convictions and sentences imposed under Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

The Court also considered the applicants’ reliance on procedural safeguards concerning inventory, sampling and certification under Section 52A of the NDPS Act.

The Court also considered the evidentiary requirement under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act in relation to the electronic photographs relied upon by the prosecution.

The governing appellate principle applied was that, where an appeal is unlikely to be heard for a considerable period and circumstances justify interim relief, the substantive sentence may be suspended during pendency of the appeal, subject to appropriate safeguards and conditions.

The applicants raised arguable issues concerning the identity and integrity of the case property, including the discrepancy between the dates recorded in the NCB-I form, omissions and alterations in the specimen seal documents, the absence of the Magistrate’s seal on the parcel produced in Court, inconsistencies regarding whether the contraband consisted of sticks and round balls, and the competence of the officer who issued the Section 65B certificate for the photographs.

Although the State characterised these matters as inadvertent or immaterial, the Division Bench did not undertake a conclusive evaluation of the evidence or determine whether the applicants were entitled to acquittal.

Instead, it gave primary weight to the fact that the appeals were likely to remain pending for a considerable period.

On that basis, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court found a case for suspension of sentence.

The substantive sentences imposed upon Bal Krishan and Shyam Singh were suspended during the pendency of their respective appeals, subject to each applicant furnishing a personal bond of ₹2,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

Each applicant was required to undertake to appear before the High Court as directed and to surrender to serve the remaining sentence if the appeal was dismissed.

They were further restrained from engaging in any illegal or unlawful activity, particularly a similar offence, failing which suspension of sentence could be cancelled.

The Trial Court was directed to transmit the bail bonds to the High Court Registry, and a downloaded copy of the order could be produced before the Trial Court subject to online verification.