SAFIL AHMAD Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgement and order dated 5.3.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 15, Kanpur Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 868 of 1999 (State v. Safil Ahmad) arising out of Case Crime No. 64 of 1999, Police Station Bazariya, District Kanpur Nagar whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(c)of N.D.P.S. Act and has been sentenced to undergo 15 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,50,000/. In default of payment of fine, he has to undergo two years additional imprisonment.

(2.) Heard Sri Mahesh Chandra Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.

(3.) At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant has fairly stated that he does not propose to challenge the impugned judgement and order on its merits as instructed by his client inasmuch as the appellant has remained in incarceration for about 11 years in jail. According to the prosecution itself, he was arrested by the police on 19.5.1999 and released on bail in the year 2001. The appellant is continuously in jail since the date of his conviction i.e. 05.02009. It is further stated that since the appellant has already undergone substantive period of sentence imposed upon him by the trial court, now his prayer is confined only for reduction of remaining period of imprisonment and the period which he has to undergo in default of payment of fine for a period of two years' additional imprisonment. In this behalf, it has been submitted that since higher than minimum punishment prescribed under N.D.P.S. Act upon the conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(c)of N.D.P.S. Act has been awarded by the trial court to the appellant without assigning special reason and without even adverting Section 32(B) of N.D.P.C. Act, the sentence imposed by the trial court of 15 years rigorous imprisonment cannot be sustained.