JUDGMENT 1. Applicant-appellants have laid this third application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court, by the impugned judgment convicted the applicants-appellants for offence punishable under Section 8 read with Section 15 of the NDPS Act and handed down 10 years imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo sentence for one years rigorous imprisonment. 2. The first application for suspension of sentence was dismissed as not pressed on 5th of February, 2018 followed by second application for suspension of sentence on 8th of December, 2018. 3. Espousing cause of the applicants-appellants for suspension of sentence, it is contended by learned counsel that appellants remained in custody during trial for a considerable period and by this time their custodial period has exceeded more than five years. Learned counsel further submits that final hearing of the appeal is unlikely in new future. Adverting to the merits of the case, it is also contended by learned counsel that during search and seizure of contraband, allegedly recovered from the appellants, besides truck transporting contraband, they too were subjected to personal search, and notice in this behalf served on them under Section 50 of the NDPS Act is infirm having direct ramification on entire search and seizure proceedings. Elaborating his submissions, learned counsel has urged that in the notice under Section 50, served on the applicants-appellants, the Seizure Officer has incorporated third option of himself to carry out search and seizure, which is dehors the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. In support thereof, learned counsel has placed reliance of a decision of Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Parmanand [ (2014) 5 SCC 345 ] . It is also submitted by learned counsel that to prove search and seizure, despite availability of umpteen time, no endeavour was made by the investigating agency to procure independent witnesses but this aspect has not at all been considered by the learned trial Court. He, therefore, submits that non-compliance of Section 100(3) & (4) Cr.P.C. is clearly apparent which has prima facie vitiated the search and seizure. He, therefore, submits that non-compliance of Section 100(3) & (4) Cr.P.C. is clearly apparent which has prima facie vitiated the search and seizure. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Ali Khan v. State of Rajasthan [2013 (4) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1920] and Supreme Court decision in State of Punjab v. Paramjit Singh [2015 (2) Drugs Cases (Narcotics) 284] . It is contended by learned counsel that there is no criminal antecedents of the applicants-appellants barring their involvement in the present case. Learned counsel has also stated that sentence handed down to co-accused has already been suspended by this Court and case of present appellants is not distinguishable from him. As regards prolonged custody of the applicants-appellants, for granting them indulgence in the matter of suspension of sentence, learned counsel has placed reliance on following judgments: Thana Singh v. Central Bureau of Narcotics [ (2013) 2 SCC 603 ] Mayuresh Nandkumar Purohit v. Kaushik Manna & Anr. [2018 Cr.L.R.(SC) 251]. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the application for suspension of sentence. It is submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that recovery of huge quantity of contraband in the matter, which is umpteen times higher than commercial quantity, is sufficient to decline application for suspension of sentence by invoking embargo under Section 37 of the Act. 5. I have bestowed my consideration to the arguments and perused the legal precedents. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering very vital fact that applicants-appellants have already undergone half of the sentence awarded by learned trial Court, besides other grounds urged on their behalf, it would be just and appropriate to grant indulgence to them in the matter of suspension of sentence. 7. Accordingly, this third application for suspension of sentence is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences awarded by learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Bhilwara, vide judgment dated 05.02.2016, in Sessions Case No. 14/2014, against appellants-applicants, (1) Pawan Kumar S/o Shri Fakka Rai and (2) Mandeep Singh S/o Shri Surender Singh, shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and they shall be released on bail subject to the condition that each of them deposits 50% of the fine amount within four weeks and furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each (including one local surety) to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance in this Court on 26.04.2019 and whenever ordered to do so till disposal of the appeal, on the following other conditions:- 1. That they will appear before the trial Court in the month of January every year till the appeal is decided. 2. That if the applicants change the place of residence, they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court. 3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court. 8. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of accused-applicants in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused applicants were tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall not be taken into account for statistical purposes relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial Court. In case the said accused-applicants do not appear before the trial Court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.