2021 (12) TMI 1395 - SC - Indian Laws

Smuggling - Heroin - Conspiracy - joint possession punishable under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act - HELD THAT - The submission of the Additional Solicitor General that offences under the NDPS Act are of a serious nature is appreciated and the case is at the post conviction stage. Yet the Court cannot be unmindful of the fact that the appellant has undergone 8 years out of the total sentence of 10 years. The appeal is unlikely to be heard early. In all probability, the entire sentence would have been undergone by the time the appeal is heard. In the circumstances, particularly, since the appellant has undergone 8 years out of ten years of the total sentence which has been imposed on him, we are of the view that a fit and proper case has been made out for the suspension of the sentence under Section 389 CrPC. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside - the sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended under Section 389 CrPC, subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Special Judge, NDPS, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of suspension of sentence under Section 389 of CrPC by a Single Judge of the High Court.
2. Conviction under Section 29 of the NDPS Act and sentencing to ten years of RI.
3. Appeal for suspension of sentence before the High Court.
4. Interpretation of guidelines for release of convicts on bail.
5. Consideration of the seriousness of the offence under the NDPS Act.
6. Expedited hearing of the appeal and suspension of sentence.

Issue 1: Denial of Suspension of Sentence
The appellant was denied a suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the CrPC by a Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi. The appellant had been convicted under Section 29 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. The High Court declined the suspension of sentence on the grounds that the appellant had not completed fifteen months in jail after the order of conviction. However, the appellant had already undergone seven years and two months in custody, as per the nominal roll dated 18 February 2021.

Issue 2: Conviction under Section 29 of the NDPS Act
The appellant and a co-accused were acquitted of joint possession but convicted under Section 29 of the NDPS Act for conspiracy. The appellant was sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1,00,000 with a default sentence. The appellant filed an appeal through the Legal Aid Cell before the High Court and sought a suspension of sentence.

Issue 3: Appeal for Suspension of Sentence
The appellant had undergone almost eight years of actual imprisonment out of the total sentence of ten years. The Additional Solicitor General argued against the suspension of sentence due to the seriousness of the offence under the NDPS Act. However, considering the time already served by the appellant and the pending appeal, the Supreme Court found it appropriate to grant the suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the CrPC.

Issue 4: Interpretation of Guidelines for Release of Convicts on Bail
The High Court's decision was based on guidelines from previous judgments regarding the release of convicts on bail, particularly in cases related to contraband possession under the NDPS Act. The Supreme Court noted that these guidelines were broad and not to be equated with statutory provisions, especially considering the delays in the disposal of appeals.

Issue 5: Consideration of the Seriousness of the Offence
While acknowledging the seriousness of offences under the NDPS Act, the Supreme Court balanced it with the fact that the appellant had already served a significant portion of the sentence. The Court emphasized the need to ensure a fair balance between the severity of the offence and the time spent in custody.

Issue 6: Expedited Hearing of the Appeal and Suspension of Sentence
The Supreme Court, after hearing arguments from both sides, decided to allow the appeal and set aside the High Court's order. The appellant's sentence was suspended under Section 389 of the CrPC, with conditions imposed by the Special Judge, NDPS, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. The appellant was directed to cooperate for the expeditious disposal of the appeal and refrain from seeking adjournments during the proceedings.