Mr. P.K. Lohra, J. - (1.) Applicant-appellants have laid these two separate applications for suspension of sentences under Section 389 Cr.P.C. By the applications aforesaid, applicant-appellants have craved for suspending the maximum sentence of ten years' rigorous imprisonment handed down by Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Hanumangarh (for short, 'learned trial Court') upon their indictment for offence under Section 8/18(b) of the NDPS Act. Besides substantive sentence, the learned trial Court has also imposed fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- to each of the applicants and in default of payment of fine to undergo sentence for one year's rigorous imprisonment.
(2.) It is argued by learned counsel for applicant-Ved Prakash, Mr. R.S. Gill, that during trial applicant remained in custody for almost a year and after passing of the impugned judgment he is under incarceration, therefore, he has already served sentence of more than two years. It is also submitted by Mr. Gill that there is no other criminal antecedent of the applicant. Learned counsel further submits that initially prosecution has came up with the case that contraband opium seized in the matter is weighing 3kg 100g inclusive of container but subsequently the same is projected as 3kg 675g, which is a serious discrepancy casting shadow of doubt on the entire investigation. Learned counsel has also submitted that Seizure Officer has not even served notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act to the applicant, and therefore, sans any criminal antecedent of the applicant, his sentence may be suspended.
(3.) Mr. Mukesh Vyas, espousing cause of applicant-Lal Chand, has submitted that he has served sentence of more than five years and nine months out of the total sentence of ten years' imprisonment. Mr. Vyas has reiterated the other arguments advanced by Mr. Gill.;