Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Saba @ Sabarathinam, was the first accused in C.C.No.231 of 2021 before the Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai. He was convicted under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and sentenced to 14 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. He filed an appeal (Crl.A(MD)No.452 of 2024) and a previous application for suspension of sentence (Crl.MP(MD)No.5457 of 2024), which was dismissed on 19.09.2025. The present application was the second such application. The prosecution case was that on 25.10.2020, accused nos.2 and 3 were found in possession of 42 kilograms of ganja in a car, and they implicated the petitioner as the leader of the operation. The petitioner argued that mandatory provisions under Sections 42(2), 50(1), and 57 of the NDPS Act were not complied with, no independent witnesses were examined, and the evidence was contradictory. The court noted that the petitioner had been in custody for over 5 years and 8 months, and the appeal was not likely to be heard soon. Considering the long incarceration and the arguable points in the appeal, the court allowed the application, suspending the sentence and granting bail on certain conditions.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Suspension of Sentence - Section 430(i) BNSS - Bail - The court considered the petitioner's application for suspension of sentence pending appeal, noting that the petitioner had already undergone a significant period of incarceration (over 5 years and 8 months) and that the appeal was not likely to be heard soon. The court held that the balance of convenience was in favor of granting suspension, especially given the non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. (Paras 1-16) B) Narcotic Drugs - Mandatory Provisions - Sections 42(2), 50(1), 57 NDPS Act - Non-Compliance - The petitioner argued that the mandatory provisions under Sections 42(2), 50(1), and 57 of the NDPS Act were not followed. The court noted that these provisions are mandatory and their non-compliance could vitiate the trial. However, the court did not finally decide this issue at this stage. (Paras 5-7) C) Evidence - Independent Witnesses - Credibility - The petitioner contended that no independent witnesses were examined and that the prosecution evidence was contradictory. The court observed that the trial court had relied on the evidence of police witnesses, but the credibility of such evidence is a matter for the appellate court. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner under the NDPS Act should be suspended pending appeal, considering the non-compliance with mandatory provisions and the period of incarceration already undergone.
Final Decision
The court allowed the application, suspending the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner and directing his release on bail pending appeal, subject to conditions including executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two sureties and reporting to the police station once a month.
Law Points
- Suspension of sentence
- NDPS Act
- mandatory provisions
- Sections 42(2)
- 50(1)
- 57
- bail
- long incarceration
- delay in appeal
