1. ' This appeal was admitted on 22-4-2002 challenging the judgment dated 10-4-2002.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant raised many pleas in support of his petition under section 426, Cr.P.C. And contended that the imprisonment challenged was only 3 years and that sentence being very short he apprehended that the same might pass during the pendency of this appeal.
3. Further contention of the counsel was that property viz. 3 Kgs. Charas and 1 Kg. Opium was already destroyed at the time of the impugned judgment, hence it could not be held as valid ground for conviction. He also raised certain other contentions which require examination and assessment of the evidence on the record.
4. ' As regard the first apprehension of the learned counsel that sentence is so short that appeal will be decided after a period beyond 3 years, is ill-founded as I am sure that this is a fresh appeal which is less than 2 months old and shall definitely be taken up and decided much early than the period of imprisonment.
5. ' The other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant require deeper appreciation and assessm ent of the evidence on facts as well as on law, which cannot be done as the main appeal which has reached the stage of regular hearing is not fixed for that purpose. Beside, when the bail application involves the same question calling for decision in appeal, it is advisable not to prejudge the case at bail stage.
6. ' The result is that the petition for suspension of sentence is dismissed with the direction to the office to fix this case for regular hearing as early as possible under the rules.