JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor on application under Section 389 Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant states that only 10 grams Smack is said to have been recovered from the appellant, which is below commercial quantity. The appellant is not habitual offender. He was on bail during the course of trial. It is also contended by learned counsel that as per Exhibit-P/6, the recovery was made at 4:10 PM on 24.9.2005 whereas notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was given at 4:15 PM, therefore, it cannot be said that compliance of provisions under Section 50 of the NDPS Act has been made. In last, he prays that accused-appellant has arguable case and hearing of the appeal will take time, therefore, the sentence awarded to the accusedappellant may be suspended during the pendency of the appeal. He will not misuse the bail. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed this application seeking suspension of sentence and stated that from the evidence, it appears that notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was given, thereafter the alleged recovery was done. He prays that looking to the nature of offence, the sentence awarded to the accused-appellant may not be suspended. 4. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the complete record as well as judgment impugned. The recovered article is below commercial quantity. Accused-appellant was on bail during the course of trial. It will be considered at the time of final hearing of the appeal whether the compliance of the provisions of Section 50 NDPS Act has been done or not. At this stage, without commenting on the merit of the 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 arguable case and hearing of the appeal will take time, I deem it just and proper to suspend the sentence awarded to the accused-appellant. 5. 5. Accordingly, the application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence is allowed and it is ordered that the sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, NDPS Case, Sri Ganganagar vide his judgment dated 14.11.2007 in Criminal Case No.47/2005 against the accused-appellant Dinesh Kumar S/o Balwant Rai 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) along with two sureties in the sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance in this Court on 26.2.2008 and whenever called upon to do so.Application allowed *******