MOHD BACHAN Vs. STATE OF NCT DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default Rigorous Imprisonment for one year for possessing Charas weighing 1 Kilogram and 560grams under Section 20 NDPS Act. The learned counsel for the appellant did not pick up a conflict with the merits of the impugned judgment or with imprisonment of Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years or with payment of fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. His only prayer was that his client is unable to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The sentence passed against him in default of payment of fine should be reduced to a lesser period. He also drew the attention of the Court that the appellant has also sent an application for admonishing of sentence and fine. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the appellant has learnt a lesson and he will never turn his hand to crime again. I find force in his argument in a measure.

(2.) The case against the appellant is supported by eye witnesses Inspector Rajinder Singh PW2, Constable Minder PW4, Balbir Singh SI Investigating Officer PW-6, Shiv Raj Singh, SI PW7. The case of the prosecution was further corroborated by Inspector K.G. Tyagi PW8. All of them have supported the prosecution case in one voice. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any flaw or infirmity in their evidence. The prosecution has also produced link evidence in the testimonies of HC Devender PW5, the then Mohirrer and HC Jai Singh, PW10 who deposited the sealed parcels at CFSL, Chandigarh. Dr. Sukhminder Kaur, Senior Scientific Officer, PW3 proved the CFSL report which is Ex.PW3/A. Rest are the formal witnesses namely Avtar Singh, Head Constable PW1, who was working as a Mess Incharge. He had handed over the weights etc. to Constable Jatinder Kumar. Mohinder Singh, Head Constable PW9 was working as Duty Officer. He proved the FIR. I am satisfied that the case stands proved and the appellant was rightly convicted by the trial court.

(3.) Keeping in view the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, some relief can be granted to the appellant. This is a matter of discretion of the court and the question of minimum sentence does not come in the way. Minimum sentence prescribed by law already stands imposed. It must be borne in mind that different Courts have exercised the discretion in different ways and there is no set principle in respect of the same. I, therefore, modify the sentence and order that accused/appellant is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (the order of the trial court is confirmed to that extent) and in default of payment of fine, appellant shall undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one month instead of one year. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. Copies of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, Tihar Jaii, Delhi as well as to the accused through Jail Superintendent.