JUDGMENT : I.A. No.1619 of 2025 The instant interlocutory application has been filed for suspension of sentence in connection with judgment of conviction dated 03.08.2023 and order of sentence dated 10.08.2023 passed by learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Hazaribnag in NCB Case No.01 of 2020 whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 18(b)/29 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo R.I for 12 years with fine of Rs.1,20,000/- and in default of payment of fine he will further undergo R.I for 2 years. 2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case where the procedure laid down under N.D.P.S Rules, 2022 has not been followed, since, the sample has not been taken from each of the bag where the contraband (i.e. opium) was found. 3. It has been contended that since there is material irregularity conducted at the time of search and as such, the same cannot be said to be rectified at later stage and hence, it is a fit case for suspension of sentence. 4. While on the other hand, Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Addl.SGI appearing for the Investigating Agency, Narcotics Control Bureau, has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence. 5. It has been contended by referring the testimony of P.W-4 who has deposed that on search of motorcycle, one white coloured nylon carry bag was recovered from the dickey of the motorcycle and one packet of transparent polythene packet was found in the said carry bag in which black coloured sticky substance like opium was found. 6. It has been contended that thereafter the said object was tested with the Drug Detection Kit (DD Kit) available with the team and it was found that the said substance was opium. 7. It has also been contended that thereafter the contraband has been placed before the concerned Magistrate before sending it to the FSL and as such it is incorrect on the part of the appellant to take the ground that the procedure as laid down under Section 52 A (3) (C) read with Rule-8/9/10 of the N.D.P.S Rules, 2022 has not been followed. 8. 8. It has also been contended that the case of the co-convict namely, Ashwini Kumar has been dealt with by the Co-ordinate Bench while passing an order in I.A. No.11520 of 2023, arising out of Criminal Appeal (DB) No.2000 of 2023, wherein, the prayer for suspension of sentence has already been rejected. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant in response to the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in connection with the co-convict namely, Ashwini Kumar has submitted that the case of the present appellant is distinguishable, reason being that the said Ashwini Kumar was found to driving the motorcycle while the present appellant was sitting therein as a pillion driver having no knowledge of the contraband having been carried by the said Ashwini Kumar. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent further in response, has submitted that there is no question having been put to the Investigating Officer regarding any witnesses denying the issue of having no knowledge with respect to carrying out the contraband by the appellant in course of the trial and as such, no new ground is allowed to be made out after the judgment having been passed by the trial court. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court in the impugned judgment as also the testimony available in the lower court record and other material exhibit as available therein. 12. This Court has considered the legal issue which has been raised i.e. non-observance of the provision of Section 52 A (3) (C) read with Rule-8/9/10 of the N.D.P.S Rules, 2022. 13. This Court, in order to appreciate the same, has considered the seizure list which has been marked as Exhibit-1, wherefrom it is evident that one carry bag was seized at the initial stage i.e. at the time of search and seizure. The article was measured through the Drug Detection Kit and the raiding team found that the article was the Narcotic substance (Opium). 14. The seizure memo was prepared, the same was duly been signed by the appellant. 15. The further procedure of sending the sample to the F.S.L has also been found to be followed, since, the contraband was placed before the Magistrate and thereafter it was sent to the FSL for its chemical report, which has been marked as Ext. 14. The seizure memo was prepared, the same was duly been signed by the appellant. 15. The further procedure of sending the sample to the F.S.L has also been found to be followed, since, the contraband was placed before the Magistrate and thereafter it was sent to the FSL for its chemical report, which has been marked as Ext. PW4-P10 and the report received after chemical examination has been marked as Ext. PW4-P11 and the object was found to be contraband (opium). 16. It is admitted case that at the time of search the appellant has been apprehended while he was going along with the co-convict-Ashwini Kumar in the motorcycle. 17. The case of the co-convict-Ashwini Kumar has been taken into consideration by the Co-ordinate Bench and the prayer for suspension of sentence has been rejected as would be evident from the order dated 20.08.2024 passed in I.A. No.11520 of 2023, arising out of Criminal Appeal (DB) No.2000 of 2023, copy of the same has been placed for its perusal before the Court which is available in the record of the said appeal. 18. The argument has been advanced on behalf of the appellant that he was only pillion driver and as such, his case is distinguishable to that of the co-convict namely, Ashwini Kumar. 19. This Court, in order to appreciate the aforesaid contention, has gone through the testimony in entirety and found therefrom that there is no denial with respect to his absence at the place of search and seizure and even no suggestion to that effect has been put before the witnesses. 20. The contraband was found to be commercial quantity and as such based upon the reasons aforesaid, this Court, is of the view that the present interlocutory application is also fit to be rejected. 21. Accordingly, I.A. No.1619 of 2025 stands rejected. 22. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove will not prejudice the case of the prosecution on merit since the appeal is lying pending for its consideration.