ORDER : Farjand Ali, J. The instant application for suspension of sentence has been moved on behalf of the applicant in the matter of judgment dated 29.09.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS cases, No. 2, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No.26/2017(11/2015) whereby he was convicted and sentenced to suffer maximum imprisonment of 14 years under Section 8@15¼x½ and lesser punishment for the other offences under Sections 3/25(1-B)(a) of Arms Act. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the instant case are that a car was intercepted by the police at the time of 'nakabandi' near mangalwad chauraha on 24.08.2014 at about 09:50 P.M. The petitioner tried to turn his car (RJ27 UA 7484) around so as to flee from that area. Upon suspicion, the police officers searched the vehicle and during search, total seventeen bags of poppy husk were found in the car containing a total of 436 kilograms of Poppy husk which was seized by the police and the seizing officer took 100 grams of poppy husk from each bag for sampling respectively; all the samples of 100 grams each collected from separate bags were mixed together in a single bag and thereafter, two samples of 500 grams each were taken from the aforesaid admixture. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submits that the mandatory provisions of NDPS Act have not been complied with, thus, on this count, the recovery of the contraband is vitiated. During search, total 17 bags of poppy husk were found in the bolero; small quantities of 100 grams were drawn from each of the bag and then from the mixture of these small quantities, two samples of 500 grams each were drawn for scientific investigation. The total weight of the admixture was 436 kilograms; out of which, two samples of 500 grams each, marked A (chemical sample) and B(control sample), were taken from the seized contraband for investigation and rest of the contraband weighing 435 kilograms was re-packed into different bags. The samples of contraband were not collected individually from the seventeen jute bags for investigation as per the stipulations in the Standing Instruction No.1/89 issued by the N.C.B., New Delhi. The samples of contraband were not collected individually from the seventeen jute bags for investigation as per the stipulations in the Standing Instruction No.1/89 issued by the N.C.B., New Delhi. As individual weight of all the bags is known and samples from each of the seventeen jute bags were not drawn for testing, it cannot be said with utmost certainty that each of the bags contained poppy husk and that the quantity of the recovered contraband is 436 kilograms. As the hearing of the appeal will take long time to conclude, therefore, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the sentence awarded to the accused-appellant may be suspended. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the accused-appellant and submits that the matter pertains to recovery of 436 kilograms of poppy husk and the judgment of conviction passed by learned Court below does not warrant any interference. The impediment contained under Sections 32-A and 37 of NDPS Act will be attracted in the factual situation of the present case. 5. After thoroughly evaluating the record and considering the overall submissions, it is observed that there is an inadequate proof to assume that all of the bags carried contraband poppy husk. The prosecution has the initial burden of proving that the appellant-applicant had contraband in every bag since the doctrine of beyond reasonable doubt applies in criminal cases. All of the samples were blended and no individual sample was taken from each bag for investigation, therefore, the possibility cannot be ruled out that some of the bags may be of contraband and rest may be filled with neutral substances. 6. This Court is aware of the provisions contained in Section 32- A and Section 37 of the NDPS Act, however, after hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for the accused-appellant regarding failure to comply with legal procedures, the Court believes that it is appropriate to suspend the sentence awarded to the accused appellant. 7. This court has passed a detailed order in this context in S.B. Criminal Misc. 3rd Bail Application No. 1162/2022; Ramchandra v. State of Rajasthan, wherein the rules pertaining to sample collection contained in Standing Order No. 1/1989 dated 13.06.1989 issued by Government of India under Section 52A of NDPS Act have been enumerated inter alia other aspects. The relevant part of the said order is as under:- "4. 3rd Bail Application No. 1162/2022; Ramchandra v. State of Rajasthan, wherein the rules pertaining to sample collection contained in Standing Order No. 1/1989 dated 13.06.1989 issued by Government of India under Section 52A of NDPS Act have been enumerated inter alia other aspects. The relevant part of the said order is as under:- "4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned public prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. The argument that collection of samples was not proper and in accordance with the procedure of sampling as per Standing Order No. 1/1989 seems to be worth considering. Clause 2.1 to 2.8 of the Violation Order/ Instruction No.1 of 1989 dated 13.6.1989 issued by the Government of India under Section 52 A of N.D.P.S. Act are of relevance to the present set of facts and are as follows: 2.1 All drugs shall be classified, carefully, weighed and sampled on the spot of seizure. 2.2 All the packages/containers shall be numbered and kept in lots for sampling. Samples from the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances seized, shall be drawn on the spot of recovery, in duplicate, in the presence of search witnesses (Panchas) and the persons from whose possession the drug is recovered and a mention to this effect should invariably be made in the panchnama drawn on the spot. 2.3 The quantity to be drawn in each sample for chemical test shall not be less than 5 grams in respect of all narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances save in the cases of opium, ganja and charas (hashish) were a quantity of 24 grams in each case is required for chemical test. The same quantities shall be taken for the duplicate sample also. The seized drugs in the packages/containers shall be well mixed to make it homogeneous and representative before the sample (in duplicate) is drawn. 2.4 In the case of seizure of a single package/container, one sample in duplicate shall be drawn. Normally, it is advisable to draw one sample (in duplicate) from each package/container in case of seizure of more than one package/container. 2.4 In the case of seizure of a single package/container, one sample in duplicate shall be drawn. Normally, it is advisable to draw one sample (in duplicate) from each package/container in case of seizure of more than one package/container. 2.5 However, when the packages/containers seized together are of identical size and weight, bearing identical markings and the contents of each package given identical results on colour test by the drug identification kit, conclusively indicating that the packages are identical in all respects the packages/container may be carefully bunched in lots of 10 package/containers except in the case of ganja and hashish (charas), where it may be bunched in lots of, 40 such packages/containers. For each such lot of packages/containers, one sample (in duplicate) may be drawn. 2.6 Where after making such lots, in the case of hashish and ganja, less than 20 packages/containers remain, and in the case of other drugs, less than 5 packages/containers remain, no bunching would be necessary and no samples need be drawn. 2.7 If such remainder is 5 or more in the case of other drugs and substances and 20 or more in the case of ganja and hashish, one more sample (in duplicate) may be drawn for such remainder package/container. 2.8 While drawing one sample (in duplicate) from a particular lot, it must be ensured that representative sample the in equal quantity is taken from each package/container of that lot and mixed together to make a composite whole from which the samples are drawn for that lot. In simple words, if there were eight plastic bags marked A, B, C,...., H that allegedly contained contraband, then eight separate representative samples from each plastic bag marked A1, B1, C1,...., H1 respectively and eight separate representative samples as control samples from each plastic bag marked A2, B2, C2,....,H2 respectively should have been collected for investigation. It is an act of utmost recklessness and irresponsibility that even after collecting separate samples from each of the eight bags, the samples were again mixed together and submitted for investigation as one admixture. Since the samples were not collected in an accurate manner and the possibility of there being no contraband in any one or more of the eight bags cannot be obviated, the contraband can be assumed to be below commercial quantity and the embargo contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not attracted." 8. Since the samples were not collected in an accurate manner and the possibility of there being no contraband in any one or more of the eight bags cannot be obviated, the contraband can be assumed to be below commercial quantity and the embargo contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not attracted." 8. The embargo contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not be triggered because it cannot be proven that each of the bags was filled with the alleged contraband amounting to a commercial quantity; instead, it is possible that the alleged seized contraband contained in each of the bags was not having contraband in it. 9. Considering the overall submissions and the observations made above and looking to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case while refraining from passing any comments on the niceties of the matter and the defects of the prosecution as the same may put an adverse effect on hearing of the appeal, this court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for suspending the sentence awarded to the accused appellant. 10. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS cases, No. 2, Chittorgarh vide judgment dated 29.09.2022 in Sessions Case No.26/2017(11/2015) against the appellant-applicant-Devi Lal S/o Kacharulal, shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 05.05.2023 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:- 1. That he will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided. 2. That if the applicant changes the place of residence, he will give in writing his 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. 11. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicant in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. 3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s),they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court. 11. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicant in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-applicant was 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 purpose relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In case, the said accused-applicant does not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.