THE STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU versus LOKESH CHADHA

Citation: [2021] 2 S.C.R. 538 · Decided: 02-03-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
538
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
THE STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) NARCOTICS CONTROL
BUREAU
v.
LOKESH CHADHA
(Criminal Appeal No. 257 of 2021)
MARCH 02, 2021
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s. 389(1) r/w. s. 37 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 – Suspension of sentence – Of the person
convicted u/ss. 23(c) and 25A of NDPS Act – Granted by High
Court during pendency of the appeal – Appeal to Supreme Court –
Held: Where trial has ended in conviction, High court should
exercise its power to suspend the sentence for sufficient reasons,
which must have bearing on the public policy underlying s. 37 NDPS
Act – No case of suspension of sentence u/s. 389(1) is made out in
the present case and hence not sustainable.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. 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 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). 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”. Where the trial has
ended in an order of conviction, the High Court, when a
suspension of sentence is sought under Section 389(1) of CrPC,
must be duly cognizant of the fact that a finding of guilt has been
arrived at by the Trial Judge at the conclusion of the trial. This is
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 538
538
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
539
not to say that the High Court is deprived of its power to suspend
the sentence under Section 389(1) of CrPC. The High Court may
do so for sufficient reasons which must have a bearing on the
public policy underlying the incorporation of Section 37 of the
NDPS Act. [Para 9][542-D-H]
Preet Pal Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020) 8 SCC
645; State of Kerala vs. Rajesh (2020) 12 SCC 122 –
relied on.
2. The High Court in the present case, has not applied its
mind to the governing provisions of the NDPS Act. On the basis
of the material which emerged before the Special Judge and which
forms the basis of the order of conviction, no case for suspension
of sentence under Section 389(1) of CrPC was established. The
order granting suspension of sentence under Section 389(1) of
CrPC is unsustainable and would accordingly have to be set aside.
[Para 10][543-F-G]
Case Law Reference
(2020) 8 SCC 645
relied on
Para 9
(2020) 12 SCC 122
relied on
Para 10
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
257 of 2021
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.07.2020 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl.M(Bail) No. 7540 of 2020 in Crl. A. No.
342 of 2020.
Aman Lekhi, ASG, Bharat Singh, B V Balaram Das, Divyansh H
Rathi, Anirudh Bakhru, Advs. for the Appellant
Ms. Nidhi, Jaydip Pati, Advs. for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from a judgment of a learned Single Judge
of the High Court of Delhi dated 28 July 2020, by which the application
THE STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU
v. LOKESH CHADHA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
540
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
filed by the respondent seeking suspension of sentence under Section
389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 19731 has been allowed.
3. The respondent has been convicted of offences punishable under
Sections 23(c) and 25A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act 19852. He has been sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for ten years in respect of the offence under Section 23(c)
and for three years under the provisions of Section 25A, apart from fine.
4. Briefly stated, on 2 December 2015, the IO of the Narcotics
Control Bureau, Delhi Zonal Unit received a phone call from DHL Courier
that two parcels were lying in the office and were suspected to contain
narcotic drugs. Accordingly, a team of the Narcotics Control Bureau,
Delhi Zonal Unit, reached the office of DHL. Two parcels were seized.
The parcels were found to contain 325 grams of heroin and 390 grams
of pseudoephedrine. The parcels were booked to a foreign destination,
at the behest of a foreign national,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.