Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, December 8
Justice came a little too late for Sunny. Convicted by a trial court before being sentenced to 10-year rigorous imprisonment in a drugs case, he was acquitted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court after nearly nine years of incarceration.
His case has prompted Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan to issue a slew of instructions, including directions to the High Court Legal Services Authority, to ensure the filing of applications for suspension of sentence. A report has also been sought from the authority in all the cases, where the accused-appellants represented by the legal aid counsel were in custody without their sentence being suspended. For the purpose, Justice Sangwan has set a three-month deadline.
Sunny had moved the HC six years ago challenging his conviction and order of sentence pronounced by the trial court in July, 2016, under a provision of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.Deciding the case in just about two hearings, Justice Sangwan asserted the impugned judgment’s perusal showed that the accused-appellant was defended by a legal aid counsel before the trial court. Even the present appeal was filed through a legal aid counsel appointed by the High Court Legal Services Authority. But an application for suspension of sentence was not moved, resulting in “unnecessary incarceration of the appellant in judicial custody for eight years, eight months and 11 days, which can’t be compensated”.
Justice Sangwan asserted: “Since the Supreme Court has already issued directions to give priority to the cases filed through legal aid counsels, the High Court Legal Services Authority is directed to submit a report within three months in all the appeals filed through legal aid counsel, in which the appellant-accused are in custody and their sentence is not suspended.”
Justice Sangwan added the authority would also issue instructions to all the counsels representing the accused to file an application for sentence suspension in matters where the same had not been submitted.
Acquitting the accused, Justice Sangwan said the entire investigation stood vitiated. A notice under Section 50 of the Act on carrying out search was not on record.
Justice Sangwan said nothing came on record in the entire prosecution evidence to explain how the FIR number was mentioned on the memos prepared much prior to its registration. The site plan and the recovery memo also showed the FIR number, making the prosecution case became highly doubtful.
Direction to Legal Services Authority
The Legal Services Authority has been directed to issue instructions to counsels representing accused to file application for sentence suspension of sentence.
Also asked to submit a report in all the appeals filed through legal aid counsel, in which the appellant-accused are in custody and their sentence is not suspended.
