IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT

AT JABALPUR, BENCH AT INDORE

IA No. : /2023
CRA No.: 12693/2023

APPELLANTS : Sewaram

Versus

RESPONDENT : State of Madhya Pradesh

INDEX

S.No. Description of Documents Annexure Page No.

1. Suspension application

2. Affidavit

______________________________________________________
Submitted by,

INDORE
DATED: 09/01/2024 Amit Singh Sisodia
(Counsel for Appellant)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT
AT JABALPUR, BENCH AT INDORE

CRA No.: 12693/2023

APPELLANTS : Sewaram

Versus

RESPONDENT : State of Madhya Pradesh

Whether any application is Particulars of Bail application

pending before or already No. Date O r d e r
disposed of by (if yes result
given particulars)
Hon’ble Supreme Court of No.
India
Hon’ble High Court NIL NIL NIL
Subordinate Court SC No. 04/09/202 Convictio
35/2019 3 n
Particulars of appellant No.1
Name Sewaram Gujar
Father’s Name Bhura Gujar
Age 26 Years
Occupation Laborer
Address Village. Bhojpura ramnagar ,District - Neemuch
(M.P.)
P e r m a n e n t Same
Address
Whether in Jail in Jail

FIRST APPLICATION U/s 389 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE CODE 1973 FOR SUSPENSION

Section Imprisonment Fine In default of

fine
8/18(c) of 5 Years 50,000/- (fifty 1 Year R.I.
N.D.P.S. Act
Thousand Only)

FIRST APPLICATION U/s 389(1) OF THE CODE OF

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE 1973 FOR SUSPENSION
1. That, this is the applicant’s First application for
suspension of sentence/conviction and bail before the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh.
Particulars of Earlier Application(s)

Serial No. Date of Institution Date of the Name of the

Applicatio Number Order Judge(s)
Nil Nil Nil Nil NIl

2. Whether any proceeding for suspension of / conviction

and bail of the appellant is pending before or decided by the
Supreme Court, if yes particulars thereof.

3. To the best of knowledge of the appellant no appeal has

been filed by any appellant.
FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF :
That, as per the prosecution story on 30/05/2019 police station
Narcotics Cell Indore through Neemuch , Rauf khan Posted as sub
inspector received the secret information that Sewaram going to
Amlikhedi to deliver the opium to some Smuggler by black colour
bike.
After receiving the said information sub-inspector Rauf khan with his
team and independent witnesses reached the spot and blocked the
road that was situated at Amlikhedi near the lake. After sometime they
saw that a Black Colour Bike bearing registration No. MP 44-MQ
8701 was coming from the Bhatkhedi site so they stop the said
vehicle.
Therefore investigating officer and his team searched the vehicle and
along with th appellant , they found 1 kg 800 gm of opium contraband
in the bags. After preparing the necessary panchnamas as per the
NDPS Act they come back police station with illegal contraband
along with vehicle and registered the crime no. 36/2019 U/s 8/18 of
NDPS Act.
Therefore ,investigating officer after the completion of the
investigation filed the challan against the present applicant before the
competent court . Upon trail, trail court found the appellant guilty as
mentioned above.
Hence, now this is application for suspension of sentence on the
following grounds :

GROUNDS:-
 1. That, the judgment of the learned Trial Court is
contrary to the law and facts on record.

2. That the judgment of the learned Trial Court is neither

legal nor proper.

3. That the learned Trial Court was erred in believing

witnesses and discarding defence version.

4. The Learned Trial Court erred in not considering that

there was no compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act.
Because Sample of the seized article was taken by
seizing officer was not in the presence of such
Magistrate which is not in compliance of the above
mentioned provision of the NDPS Act.

5. That, the learned Trial Court did not consider the

material fact that the Sample were taken by the seizing
officer was procured in the Four Square cigarette packet
which was not produced before the Trial Court and
different marked packet was produced.

6. That, The learned Trial Court erred in not considering

the fact that the statement of seizing officer and his
cross examination in para no. 39, who stated that “ े
कहनाा गलत ै कक उ प ारथ ोत ककथत ोर े र िकग े ट े

ा ी ो े ें र ा ा ए ं े कह ा गलत ै कक आकिटकल A1 B1

ि◌◌े नकहत ककया ा ’’ which is contrary to the record

and on that basis it is clearly assumed that the article

खा
ली
कि
खो
खे
है
में
खा
क्त
था
था
वं
दा
ये
को
ना
ख्त
है
फो
स्क्वे
रे
ये
के
 which was produced before the court was not same
which was alleged to be seized from the applicant.

7. That, the Learned Trial Court erred in not considering

that the prosecution did not prove the compliance of
Section 42 of NDPS Act. In Contrary to this Learned
Trial Court wrongly believed that Section 43 and 49 of
the Act were attracted in the present case.

8. That, the Learned Trial Court erred in not considering

that the prosecution did not prove the compliance of
mandatory provision of Section 57 of the NDPS Act.

9. That, Learned Trial Court erred in not considering that

the prosecution did not prove the compliance of
mandatory provisionof Section 50 of the NDPS Act.

10.That, Learned Trial Court erred in not considering that

the prosecution did not prove the compliance of
mandatory provisionof Section 52 of the NDPS Act.

11.That, the learned trial court has not considered the

prosecution witness properly and therefore under these
circumstances there were no chain of evidence to prove
the case and the same cannot be corroborated from the
statements of the witnesses.

12.That, the learned trial court has erred in not considering

the fact that the Complainant did not support the
prosecution’s story.
13.That, the learned trial court has passed the judgment by
convicting the appellants merely on the statement of the
interested witnesses, who after a plan and strategy falsely
implicated the present appellants.

14.That, the learned trial court has not passed any benefit to
the present appellant regarding the serious omissions and
contradictions in the statement of the witnesses.

15.That, the learned Trial Court was wrong in believing

prosecution witnesses and discarding defense version.

16.That, the learned Trial Court was wrong in drawing

unwarranted inferences.

17.That the learned Trial Court was wrong in not

considering the material omissions and contradictions in
the statement of prosecution witnesses.

18.That the learned trial court has failed to consider the

important fact that the entire prosecution story is doubtful
and as a consequence of although process.

19.That, the learned trial court has erred by convicting and

sentencingthe appellant in absence of any cogent material
or evidence on record.

20.That, the learned trial court has erred by not appreciating

the fact that, in the instant case there is no iota of
material against the appellant for which he has been
convicted.
21.That, the learned trial court has erred by not considering
the fact that, the investigating agency has done a very
casual investigationin the instant case.

22.That, the learned trial court has erred by not considering

and appreciating the defense of the appellant as laid by
him.

23.That, the learned trial court has erred by not appreciating

the fact that, appellant has no nexus with the alleged
offence.

24.That, the learned trial court has erred by imposing a very

harsh sentence and fine on the appellant for no fault on
his part.

25.That, the convection is bad in law.

26.That, the appellant craves leave of this Hon’ble Court to
urge and argue other grounds at the time of final hearing
of this appeal.

27.That, the Applicant is ready to furnish adequate surety

and shall abide by all the directions and conditions which
may be imposed by the Hon’ble court.

28.That, the appellant craves leave of this Hon’ble High

Court to urge other grounds at the time of hearing of this
application.
 PRAY E R
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that in the interest of justice,
the execution of sentence of the present applicant may kindly be
suspended, till the decision of this Appeal.

INDORE Submitted by,

Dated:- 09/01/2024

Amit Singh Sisodia

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
AT INDORE
CRA NO. 12693/2023

APPELLANTS : Sewaram

Versus

RESPONDENT : State of Madhya Pradesh

Affidavit
1. I, Sewaram S/o Bhura Gujar, Aged 26 Years occupation –
Labourer R/o –Village. Bhojpura ramnagar , District - Neemuch
(M.P.) do hereby state on oath as under:

2. That, I am the Relative of the present applicant and I have full

knowledge of the matter. I am also authorized for given the
affidavit in the accompanying Suspension Application and
conversant with all the facts and circumstances of the case.

That, the facts and law mentioned in para 1 to End of this

Suspension Application are true to my personal belief and
knowledge and as explained.

Place : Indore,
Dated : 09/01/2024

VERIFICATION

I, the deponent above named do hereby verify that contents of

this affidavit from para 1 to 3 are true to my personal belief and
knowledge.

Place : Indore,
Dated : 09/01/2024