JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the appellant(s) and learned Public Prosecutor on applications under Section 389 Cr.PC. for suspension of sentence. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant(s) states that 80 kgs. of poppy husk (Doda post) was recovered from two bags from two accused persons which cannot be treated to be more than commercial quantity. The FSL report has also not been tendered in evidence, but the learned trial Court has read the same in evidence. The material witnesses have not supported the prosecution story. The appellant was on bail during the trial. The applicant has remained in custody for more than 4 years. He has arguable case and hearing of the appeal will take time, therefore, the sentence awarded to the accused appellants may be suspended during the pendency of the appeal. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed these applications seeking suspension of sentence and stated that from the evidence of P.W. 3 Ranveer Singh, and P.W. 6 Virendra Kumar, it is established that both the accused were travelling in a car and 80 kgs. Doda post was recovered, therefore, it was in joint possession. Therefore, the sentence of accused appellants should not be suspended in such a case. 4. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record of the case and judgment impugned. In the instant case, 40-40 kgs. poppy husk was recovered from two bags lying in the car in which both the accused were travelling and the same cannot be said to be more than commercial quantity. Whether it was in their joint possession or not and whether the FSL report can be read in evidence when it was not tendered in evidence will be considered at the time of hearing of the case. Independent witnesses P.W. 1 Nahar Singh and P.W. 2 Radhe Shyam have not supported the prosecution case. Looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that accused-appellant has strong arguable case and hearing of the appeal will take time, at this stage, without commenting on the merit of the case, I deem it just and proper to suspend the sentence awarded to the accused-appellant(s). 5. Accordingly, the application under Section 389 Cr.PC. 5. Accordingly, the application under Section 389 Cr.PC. for suspension of sentence is allowed and it is ordered that the sentence passed by learned Sessions Judge, Churu vide his judgment dated 30.6.2003 in Sessions Case No. 3/2002 against the accused-appellant Jagmohan Singh S/O Hardev Singh shall remain suspended till the final disposal of aforesaid appeal provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) alongwith two sureties in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the trial court for their appearance in this Court on 15.1.2007 and whenever called upon to do so.Application Allowed. *******