Key Judgments
The Rajasthan High Court suspended the ten-year sentence of a Jaipur medical-store owner convicted under the NDPS Act, finding prima facie that the samples sent for testing were not drawn before a Magistrate under Section 52A (paras 9, 11-12). Because the same police constable was shown present at two searches during overlapping times, it asked the Director General of Police to inquire (paras 15, 17).
The Rajasthan High Court held that Section 430 of the BNSS and Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operate independently, and that an appellate court cannot routinely demand a 20% deposit of the fine as a precondition for suspending a cheque-dishonour sentence (paras 7-9). Applying Jamboo Bhandari, it set aside the deposit condition and directed the Sessions Court to hear the appeal without pre-deposit, preferably within six months (paras 10-12).
The Supreme Court held that a direction to pay a fine "is also a sentence" that the appellate court may suspend under Section 389(1) CrPC, with or without conditions (paras 5-6, 8). It refused to disturb a Delhi High Court order of 2016 suspending the sentence of a convict in a CBI corruption case, treating his deposit of Rs. 15 lakh as the condition for suspending a fine of Rs. 95 lakh (paras 1, 7, 10).
Related Sections
Sections indexed judgments have also cited alongside this one — a factual co-occurrence, not a claim that the provisions are legally related.