2021 (3) TMI 570 - SCH - Indian Laws

Seeking suspension of sentence under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Smuggling - Heroin - HELD THAT - The offence of which the respondent has been convicted by the Special Judge arises out of the provisions of Sections 23(c) and 25A of the NDPS Act. The findings of the learned Special Judge which have been arrived at after a trial on the basis of evidence which has been adduced indicate that the respondent who was a proprietor of a courier agency was complicit with a foreign national in the booking of two parcels which were found to contain 325 grams of heroin and 390 grams of pseudoephedrine. Section 37 of the NDPS Act stipulates that no person accused of an offence punishable for offences under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27A and also for offences involving a commercial quantity shall be released on bail, where the public prosecutor opposes the application, unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail . The judgment and order of the High Court dated 28 July 2020 suspending the sentence of the respondent shall stand set aside and the respondent shall surrender forthwith to the sentence - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for suspension of sentence under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.
2. Interpretation of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 regarding bail provisions.
3. Consideration of grounds for suspension of sentence post-conviction under Section 389 of the CrPC.
4. Review of High Court's decision to suspend the sentence based on COVID-19 pandemic disruption.

Issue 1: Application for Suspension of Sentence under Section 389(1) of CrPC
The appeal before the Supreme Court arose from a judgment of the High Court of Delhi granting the respondent's application for suspension of sentence under Section 389(1) of the CrPC. The respondent had been convicted under Sections 23(c) and 25A of the NDPS Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment. The High Court allowed the suspension of the sentence citing the period already undergone by the respondent and delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The appellant contended that the reasons provided by the High Court for granting bail were vague and insufficient, lacking specific grounds as required under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 37 of the NDPS Act
The Supreme Court analyzed the requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, emphasizing that bail for offences under Sections 23(c) and 25A can only be granted if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and will not commit further offences while on bail. The Court highlighted that the Trial Judge's finding of guilt must be considered when evaluating a suspension of sentence under Section 389(1) of the CrPC. The Court referred to previous judgments outlining the distinction between pre-trial bail and post-conviction bail, stressing the need for strong and compelling reasons to grant bail post-conviction, as mandated by Section 389(1) of the CrPC.

Issue 3: Grounds for Suspension of Sentence Post-Conviction
The Supreme Court scrutinized the High Court's decision to suspend the sentence, noting that the High Court failed to apply the principles governing bail under the NDPS Act. The Court found that based on the evidence presented during the trial, no sufficient grounds for suspension of sentence under Section 389(1) of CrPC were established. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the order granting suspension of sentence was unsustainable and set it aside, directing the respondent to surrender to the sentence.

Issue 4: Review of High Court's Decision Based on COVID-19 Pandemic
The Supreme Court acknowledged the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on court proceedings but emphasized that such disruptions cannot be the sole basis for granting suspension of sentence. The Court directed the High Court to expedite the appeal hearing upon the respondent's surrendering to the sentence, aiming for final disposal by the end of the year. The Court clarified that its decision to set aside the suspension of sentence does not affect the merits of the case during the appeal hearing before the High Court.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order suspending the respondent's sentence and directing the respondent to surrender. The Court highlighted the importance of adhering to the stringent requirements for granting bail under the NDPS Act and emphasized the need for strong reasons to justify suspension of sentence post-conviction under Section 389(1) of the CrPC.