UNION OF INDIA Vs. MOHD ANSAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri I. B. Singh learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal, which has been preferred under Section 377 (2) Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the sentence and also illegality in the judgment so far as it concerns the manner in which the respondents have been sentenced by ignoring the provisions of N.D.P.S Act. We have gone through the judgment of the court below. It comes out that on 30.01.2009 charges were framed and on the same day on the basis of confession made by the respondents they have been convicted and sentenced for the offences said to have been committed by them under Sections 8/21 and 8/21/29 N.D.P.S Act. The judgment itself speaks volume. Let notice be issued to the respondents to show-cause as to why the sentence awarded to them by the court below be not enhanced. Let bailable warrants of arrest be also issued against the respondents through Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barabanki fixing 21st May 2009 for their attendance before this Court. List the appeal on 21st May 2009.

(2.) 04.2009 Union of India Vs. Mohd. Ansar & Ors. Hon'ble A. Mateen, J. Hon'ble S. C. Chaurasia, J. This criminal appeal has been preferred on behalf of the Union of India through Superintendent (Preventive), Central Bureau of Narcotics, Lucknow against judgment & order dated 30.01.2009 passed by Sri Anoop Kumar Goyal, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Tack Court No. 29, Barabanki in Session Trial No. 612 of 2008 whereby convicting respondents Mohd. Ansar, Shahjade and Guddu for the offence alleged to have been committed by them under Sections 8/21 as well as 8/21/29 N.D.P.S. Act. We have gone through the judgment of the trial Court. From a perusal of the judgement, it is borne out that in the Sessions Trial on 30.01.2009, charges were framed against the accused. It is very surprising to note that on the same very day, on the basis of confession made by the accused persons, conviction was recorded. It was ordered that two of the accused persons are in judicial custody and accused Guddu is on bail. It was further ordered that his bail bonds be cancelled and sureties be discharged and he be taken into custody. Thereafter, again on the same day, i.e. 30.01.2009 the accused persons were heard on the quantum of sentence. So far as the sentence awarded to the accused persons is concerned, while dealing the question of sentence, the Court below has mentioned that accused Mohd Ansar is in jail for the last nine months. Similarly, so far as accused Shahjade is concerned, it has been mentioned that he is in jail for more than two months. Similarly, with regard to accused Guddu, it has been mentioned in the judgment by the trial Court that he is in jail for the last four months. Astonishingly, the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. 29) Barabanki has awarded sentence to the accused for different periods, i.e. accused Mohd Ansar has been sentenced to ten months R.I. with fine; and accused Shahjade has been sentenced to two months seven days with fine. Even one of the accused, namely, Guddu has simply been sentenced to the period undergone by him with fine without mentioning the period for which he has been sentenced. The judgement on the face of it seems to be per se illegal and speaks volume. However, we are not indulging furthermore in view of the fact that we propose to refer the matter to Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate orders. Let the matter be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice within a week for appropriate orders/inquiry, as may be deemed just and proper in the facts of the case.