JUDGMENT : I.A. No. 13656 of 2024: 1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section 430 (1) of the B NSS, 2023 for keeping the sentence in abeyance in connection with the judgment of conviction dated 02.08.2022 and order of sentence dated 05.08.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge NDPS at Khunti in Saiko P.S. Case No. 04 of 2019, corresponding to NDPS Case No. 10 of 2019, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12 years and a fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 18(b) of the NDPS Act . 2. It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that it is a case where without following the mandatory requirement as laid under the statute, the appellant has been convicted. Such argument has been made based upon the fact that the provision regarding the search and seizure has not been followed. 3. Further, the measurement taken said to be not proper and is not based upon the statutory provision. 4. The learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that therefore it is a fit case for suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal. 5. While, on the other hand, Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Jharkhand, while opposing the prayer for suspension of sentence, has submitted that it is a case where all the procedure has been followed as mandated under the NDPS Act , 1985 i.e., the process at the stage of search and seizure has been followed. 6. Further, the mandatory requirement as provided under Section 52-A particularly sub-Section 3 thereof and the NDPS Rule 22 has also been followed since, after the seizing the contraband to the extent of 5 Kilogram and 250 Grams of Pasti Opium and the same was measured with the kit and thereafter in presence of the Sub- Divisional Officer, the seizure memo was prepared on which the signature of the present appellant has been taken. 7. Further, as would appear from the testimony of the Investigating Officer who has been examined as PW-6 that the seized contraband was also placed before the Magistrate before sending it to the Forensic Science Laboratory and the report of the FSL has also authenticated the nature of the contraband said to be Opium. 8. 7. Further, as would appear from the testimony of the Investigating Officer who has been examined as PW-6 that the seized contraband was also placed before the Magistrate before sending it to the Forensic Science Laboratory and the report of the FSL has also authenticated the nature of the contraband said to be Opium. 8. Based upon the aforesaid fact, learned counsel for the State has submitted that it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence. 9. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, gone across the finding recorded by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment as also the testimony available in the Lower Court Records and the other material exhibits available therein. 10. This Court, in order to appreciate the argument advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties, has gone across the testimony of Investigating Officer, who has been examined as PW-6, wherefrom it is evident that on secret information the contraband to the extent of 5 Kilogram and 250 Grams Pasti Opium has been recovered from the bag which was in the possession of the present appellant along with the other co-convicts. 11. It further appears that a common seizure memo was prepared in which the signature of the appellant has also been taken in presence of the SDPO, a gazetted officer in the rank. 12. The Investigating Officer has also deposed that the measurement has been taken by following the due procedure mandated under the statute with the kit and thereafter it was also placed before the concerned Judicial Magistrate by opening the seal before sending it to the Forensic Science Laboratory for its chemical examination. The sample has been reported to be positive as would appear from the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory. 13.This Court, therefore, based upon the aforesaid fact that the procedure as provided under the statute since has been followed and the quantity of the contraband, is of the view that it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence during pendency of the appeal. 14.Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being I.A. No. 13656 of 2024, is hereby, rejected.