Sentence suspension denied despite alleged evidentiary discrepancies in a commercial-quantity NDPS conviction.

The applicant sought suspension of the sentence imposed following his conviction for possessing 1.396 kg of charas.

He had been sentenced to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,00,000, with two years’ further imprisonment in default.

The prosecution alleged that police stopped a bus on 10 December 2023 and recovered the charas from a bag beside the applicant’s seat.

In support of suspension, the applicant pointed to alleged inconsistencies in the witnesses’ accounts, the timing and location of the interception and arrest, and the claimed presence of a Deputy Superintendent of Police; he had served approximately two years and six months.

The State opposed suspension, relying on witness testimony, photographs and the alleged recovery of a commercial quantity.

Whether the applicant had established sufficient grounds for suspension of his sentence pending appeal, considering the asserted evidentiary discrepancies and his period of custody.

Whether the asserted issues concerning the Deputy Superintendent’s presence and compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act justified suspension, given that no contraband was recovered from the applicant’s personal search.

The conviction and sentence arose under Section 21(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, as identified in the judgment.

The parties also addressed compliance with Sections 42(2) and 50 of the Act; the State relied on Ranjan Kumar Chadha v. State of H.P., AIR 2023 SC 5164, for the proposition that non-compliance with Section 50 is not fatal where nothing is recovered in a personal search.

The Court did not set out a separate test for suspension of sentence or decide the parties’ statutory arguments on their merits; it assessed whether the material and circumstances before it warranted suspension at that stage.

The Court considered the competing submissions concerning the alleged inconsistencies in the interception, seizure and arrest evidence, the non-examination of the Deputy Superintendent, the Section 50 issue, and the applicant’s custody.

Although the applicant relied on these matters to contend that acquittal was reasonably possible, the Court concluded, on the material and circumstances before it, that they did not establish a case for suspending the sentence at the interim stage.

It expressly left the merits open for determination in the appeal.

Its observations were preliminary and confined to the application; they were not to affect the final adjudication of the appeal.