Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Tej Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:29783) on 8 July, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:29783]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 868/2025
Tej Singh S/o Jawan Singh, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of
Bassi Ghevra, Police Station Osian District Jodhpur. At Present
Shramikpura House No. 170, Masuria Jodhpur (Lodged In Sub
Jail Jaitaran)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Birbal Ram Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi,AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order 08/07/2025
1. The instant application for suspension of sentence has been moved on behalf of the applicant in the matter of judgment dated 25.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Jetaran, District Pali in Sessions Case No.- 62/2016 whereby he was convicted and sentenced vide order dated 28.04.2025 to suffer maximum imprisonment of 10 years' R.I. under Section - 8/15 of NDPS Act ,1985 and in default of payment of fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. further to undergo 1 year R.I..
2. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the learned trial Judge has not appreciated the correct, legal and factual aspects of the matter and thus, reached at an erroneous (Downloaded on 11/07/2025 at 06:19:29 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:29783] (2 of 6) [SOSA-868/2025] conclusion of guilt, therefore, the same is required to be appreciated again by this Court. He was on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty so granted to him; hearing of the appeal is likely to take long time, therefore, the application for suspension of sentence may be granted.
3. Per contra, learned public prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer made on behalf of the accused-applicant for releasing the appellant on application for suspension of sentence.
4. Heard and perused the material available on record.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the present case is riddled with serious infirmities which cast grave doubt on the sustainability of the conviction. It is contended that the prosecution has failed to place on record the primary and control samples alleged to have been recovered from the appellant. It is further submitted that the seized articles were never produced before the trial court along with the requisite FSL seal. It is also not the case of the prosecution that Exhibits S1 to S11 (alleged contraband) were ever presented before the trial court in their original form or even as control samples, duly sealed and identified.
6. Ordinarily, an investigating officer is expected to first recover and seal the seized contraband and thereafter forward the same for FSL examination. However, in the present case, there is no cogent evidence to show that the original articles (Downloaded on 11/07/2025 at 06:19:29 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:29783] (3 of 6) [SOSA-868/2025] or the representative samples were ever produced in court. Instead, it appears that only the FSL report was relied upon for securing conviction, despite the absence of the actual contraband articles being tendered in evidence.
7. Even when objection was raised during trial regarding non- production of the articles, the learned trial court purportedly directed the forwarding of a representative sample to the FSL. However, the trial was ultimately decided merely on the basis of the FSL Report, which too remains unexplained in terms of the chain of custody and authenticity of the sample sent. A conviction based purely on such a report, without the material foundation being established through proper recovery, production and proof of the seized substance, cannot be held to be safe or sustainable.
8. The reliance on the FSL Report, which gave a positive opinion regarding the nature of the substance, becomes highly debatable in light of the conspicuous absence of clinching corroborative evidence showing that the tested sample indeed originated from the accused-applicant. The prosecution has failed to bridge the evidentiary gap with respect to continuity, custody and identity of the seized contraband.
9. If, as alleged, the learned trial court decided to send only a representative sample to the FSL in order to allay any doubt, then prudence demanded that the trial be deferred till receipt of the FSL report. Proceeding to convict the accused in such a (Downloaded on 11/07/2025 at 06:19:29 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:29783] (4 of 6) [SOSA-868/2025] situation, without the presence of material evidence or timely FSL confirmation, seriously undermines the credibility of the judicial process.
10. Furthermore, reliance has been placed on Exhibit P- 31A, a copy of the daily Rojnamcha of the concerned police station, which discloses a startling revelation about the suspected loss or missing status of the articles from the police station. Such a circumstance, in itself, is sufficient to shake the very foundation of the prosecution case.
11. The mandate under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, which envisages a lawful procedure for preparation of inventory, sampling, and certification of seized contraband under judicial supervision, appears to have been observed in breach. It is specifically noted that although an inventory of the seized article was prepared on 24.04.2019, the sample so inventoried was never forwarded for forensic examination to the FSL. This omission strikes at the root of the evidentiary value of the inventory and renders the subsequent reliance on any such sample or report unsustainable. The very purpose of Section 52A -- to ensure credibility, authenticity, and judicial oversight over the seized substance -- stands defeated due to non-compliance with its essential safeguards. The inventory was prepared almost nine years later, thereby reducing it to a redundant, post-facto exercise with little evidentiary value.
(Downloaded on 11/07/2025 at 06:19:29 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:29783] (5 of 6) [SOSA-868/2025]
12. The conviction based solely on the FSL report (Exhibit P-29), in the absence of original seizure material, proper sampling procedures, chain of custody, or reliable inventory, renders the entire prosecution case suspect. The sustainability of the conviction under such debilitative evidentiary circumstances is seriously in question. In view of these glaring lapses and the doubtful credibility of the recovery proceedings, it would not be safe or just to allow the appellant to continue in custody during the pendency of the appeal.
13. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 430 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the sentence passed by learned trial Court, the details of which are provided in the first para of this order, against the appellant-applicant named above shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 08.08.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-
(1) That he will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.
(2) That if the applicant changes the place of residence, he will give in writing his changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.(Downloaded on 11/07/2025 at 06:19:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29783] (6 of 6) [SOSA-868/2025] (3) Similarly, if the sureties change their addresses, they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.
7. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicant in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-applicant was tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall not be taken into account for statistical purpose relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In case the said accused applicant does not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.
(FARJAND ALI),J 101-Samvedana/-
(Downloaded on 11/07/2025 at 06:19:29 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)