Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Union Of India vs Ismile on 13 July, 2015
Bench: Madan B. Lokur, S.A. Bobde
ITEM NO.9 COURT NO.9 SECTION IIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 1408/2015
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25/07/2014
in IA No. 2842/2013 in CRLA No. 188/2012 passed by the High Court
Of M.P at Indore)
UNION OF INDIA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
ISMILE Respondent(s)
(With appln. (s) for exemption from filing O.T. and interim relief
and office report)
Date : 13/07/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Maninder Singh, ASG
Mr. Surendra Kumar Gupta, Adv.
Ms. Shefali Sethi, Adv.
Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Poonam R., Adv.
Mr. P.V. Raghunandan, Adv.
Mr. Neeraj Srivastava, Adv.
Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The challenge is to order dated 25.07.2014 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh suspending the sentence of the respondent who was convicted for an offence under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Signature Not Verified Psychotropic Substances Act (for short 'the NDPS Act) Digitally signed by Meenakshi Kohli Date: 2015.07.13 12:23:34 IST Reason: and sentenced to 15 years of rigorous imprisonment. 1 The High Court has suspended the sentence on two grounds viz; (i) only evidence available against the respondent is the confessional statement made by him and (ii) that the appeal will take long time to be heard on merits.
We are of the view that the reasons given by the High Court are inadequate for the suspension of sentence. The confessional statement made by the respondent is to the effect that he was having 13 kg of heroin with him and despite appearing on several occasions, the confession was not retracted. The fact that the appeal cannot be heard early is not a ground for suspension of sentence. The High Court should make an endeavour to dispose of the appeal at the earliest.
We also find that the High Court has not looked at Section 37 of the NDPS Act in so far as the respondent is concerned while on the other hand it has denied suspension of sentence to accused No.2 i.e. Zakir in view of the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Under these circumstances, we set aside the order of the High Court and direct that the respondent be taken in custody forthwith to serve the sentence subject to any application that the respondent may move before the High Court.
We also request the High Court to hear the matter expeditiously and dispose it of considering the fact 2 that the respondent has already served six years of rigorous imprisonment.
We make it clear that our observations will not have any bearing on the merits of the appeal. The special leave petition is disposed of.
(MEENAKSHI KOHLI) (JASWINDER KAUR)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
3