ORDER : I.A.(Cr.) No. 1715 of 2025 1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section 430(1) of the BNSS, 2023 for suspension of sentence dated 01.05.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS), East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in N.D.P.S. Case NO. 08 of 2022 arising out of N.C.B. Case No. 06 of 2021, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 20 (Twenty) years and fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine he will suffer further R.I. for six months for the offence committed u/s 20 (b)(ii)(C) of N.D.P.S. Act, further sentence to undergo R.I. for 20 (Twenty) years and fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine he will suffer further R.I. for six months for the offence committed u/s 25 of N.D.P.S. Act and further sentence to undergo R.I. for 20 (Twenty) years and fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine he will suffer further R.1. for six months for the offence committed u/s 29 of N.D.P.S. Act. The period already undergone in custody by the convicts in this case will be set off with the sentence and further directs to execute personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- to abstain himself for commission of any offence under the N.D.P.S. Act for a period of two years in terms of section 34 of the N.D.P.S. Act. 2. It has been contended on behalf of appellant that the judgment of conviction is passed without following the statutory provision as contained under the provisions of NDPS Act, 1985. It has further been submitted, by referring to the provision of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act basis upon which the judgment of conviction has been passed, that provisions of the Act though the same has not been complied with but the appellant has been convicted. 3. It has been contended that the appellant was only escorting the truck/vehicle carrying the contraband i.e., 697 KG of Ganja and merely on the basis of the same and confessional statement of the driver the appellant has been implicated in the instant case. Further the recovery is not from the physical or conscious possession of the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant based upon the aforesaid grounds has submitted that it is a fit case for suspension of sentence. 5. Further the recovery is not from the physical or conscious possession of the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant based upon the aforesaid grounds has submitted that it is a fit case for suspension of sentence. 5. While on the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence, during pendency of the instant appeal. 6. It has been contended that none of the statutory provision as provided under Section 51 (A) 3 of the NDPS Act and Rule 22 of the NDPS Rules has been flouted. The learned trial Court based upon the provision of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act has passed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 7. It has further been submitted that the P.W. 5 at paragraph 68 has deposed about the Call Details Record [CDR] analysis, which has been given after compliance of provision of Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act and to that effect a certificate has been issued, which has been marked as Exhibit P-22, from perusal of which is evident that there was continuous talk of the appellant with the driver of the vehicle which was carrying the contraband, Ganja of 697 kilogram of Ganja. 8. Submission therefore has been made that since the nature of crime is heinous, as such the prayer for suspension is not fit to be allowed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone through the finding recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned judgment and the testimony of the witnesses as also the material exhibits, as available in the Lower Court Records. 10. This Court, in order to appreciate the argument advanced on behalf of appellant that the statutory provision as contained under Section 52 of the NDPS Act has not been followed, has gone through the testimony of the witnesses in entirety as also the exhibits and found therefrom that the procedure as laid down Section 52(A) 3 has been followed since beginning i.e., from the stage of search and seizure as also the sampling of the contraband has been sent after being placed before the concerned authority after getting due signature over the document based upon which the sample was sent to the FSL and the learned trial Court has taken into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter. 11. 11. Further the complicity of the appellant has been found to be there which is on the basis of CDR report showing the continuous talk of the appellant with the driver of the vehicle which was carrying the contraband, the report of which has been marked as Exhibit P-22. Further the Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act has also been complied with, as would be evident from the testimony of the Investigating Officer, who has been examined as P.W. 5. 12. This Court considering the aforesaid fact and taking into consideration the fact that large quantify of contraband i.e., 697 kilogram of Ganja has been recovered, is of the view that the appellant has not been able to make out a prima facie case for suspension of sentence and hence the instant Interlocutory Application deserves to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 1715 of 2025 stands dismissed. 14. It is made clear that any observation(s) made hereinabove will not prejudice the case of the parties on merit since the appeal is lying pending for its consideration.