MOHSIN IBRAHIM SAYYED Vs. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Sec. 482 and 427(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.'), whereby he has sought a prayer that the sentence imposed upon him in NIA Case No. RC-09/2016/NIA/DLI by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-03, Patiala House Court, New Delhi vide order dtd. 2/6/2022 be directed to run concurrently with the sentence imposed upon him in NIA Special Case no. 3/2016 arising out of RC-02/2016/NIA/MUM, by the learned Additional Principal Judge and Special Judge MCOCA/POTA/NIA/TADA Greater Bombay vide order dtd. 7/1/2022.THE CASE OF PETITIONER

(2.) Succinctly put, the case set out by the petitioner herein is that the Court of NIA Special Judge at Greater Bombay had convicted him for the offences punishable under Sec. 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') and Ss. 18/20/38/39 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 ('UAPA') in case arising out of RC/02/2016/NIA/MUM, vide judgment dtd. 7/1/2022. Thereafter, vide order on sentence dtd. 7/1/2022, the learned Trial Court (Greater Bombay) had sentence the petitioner to five years of rigorous imprisonment under Sec. 18 of UAPA and Sec. 120B of IPC; eight years of rigorous imprisonment under Sec. 20 of UAPA; and seven years of rigorous imprisonment under Sec. 38/39 of UAPA. It was further directed that these sentences would would run concurrently. Thus, the maximum actual sentence in this case was eight years.

(3.) Thereafter, the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-03, Patiala House Court, New Delhi had held the petitioner guilty in case arising out of RC-09/2016/NIA/DLI and had convicted him, vide judgment dtd. 20/5/2022, under Ss. 17/18/20 of UAPA and Sec. 120B of IPC. Pursuant thereto, the learned Trial Court (Delhi) had, vide order dtd. 2/6/2022, sentenced the petitioner to five years of rigorous imprisonment under Sec. 120B of IPC; seven years of rigorous imprisonment, each, under Sec. 17, 18 and 20 of UAPA;and had directed that these sentences would run concurrently. Thus, the maximum actual sentence in this case was seven years.