Delhi High Court
Ijajuddin @ Guddu vs The State on 19 January, 2010
Author: V. K. Jain
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Crl.A.No.18/2009
# IJAJUDDIN @ GUDDU ..... Appellant
! Through: Mr. Mohd. Shamik, Adv.
versus
$ THE STATE ..... Respondent
^ Through: Mr. Jaideep Malik, APP
* CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers
may be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be
reported in the Digest? No
: V.K. JAIN, J. (ORAL)
1. This is an appeal against the Judgment dated 3rd
December, 2004 and Order on Sentence dated 7th December,
2004, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 21(b)
of NDPS Act and was sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and
to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- or to undergo SI for 6 months in
default.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 11 th July, 2002, the
appellant and one more person, who was accompanying him,
were apprehended on the western corner of petrol pump near
Dayal Singh College and on search of the appellant, 200 gms of
heroin was recovered.
3. During trial, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses in
support of his case. One witness was examined in defence. PW-2
Head Constable Kuldeep Singh stated that on 11 th July, 2002,
the appellant accompanied by his co-accused Nafees, who has
been acquitted by the Trial Court, was apprehended near Dayal
Singh College and on his search, 200 gms of heroin was
recovered from the right side back of the pant, which he was
wearing. The deposition of PW-2, as regards the recovery of the
heroin was corroborated by PW-3 Dilwar Singh, who was also a
member of the raiding party, that arrested the appellant. PW-7
SI Kuldeep Singh has also stated that the appellant was
arrested from near Dayal Singh College on 11 th July, 2002 on
receipt of a secret information and 200 gms heroin was
recovered from the back of his pant.
4. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant
denied the recovery of heroin from him and stated that he had
been implicated at the instance of one Ramzan. He also
examined one Mohd. Yunus in his defence, who stated that on
11th July, 2002, a person had come to their house and had taken
the appellant on the pretext of some work.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant states that
considering the evidence produced against the appellant during
trial, he does not dispute his conviction under Section 21(b) of
NDPS Act and only seeks reduction of the substantive sentence
and the fine imposed on him.
6. Section 21(b) of NDPS Act, after its amendment w.e.f 2 nd
October, 2001, to the extent it is relevant provides that where
the contravention involves quantity, lesser than commercial
quantity but greater than small quantity, the accused would be
liable to imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years
and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupee. The
appellant having been arrested and the heroin having been
recovered from him on 11th July, 2002, much after the
amendment coming into force, he would get the benefit of
amended provision. Since 200 gms of heroin was recovered
from the appellant, the quantity involved was more than small
quantity, which is 5 gms and less than commercial quantity,
which is 250 gms.
7. The appellant has also spent about three years in jail.
Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the
case, the appellant is sentenced to undergo RI for the period
already spent by him in the jail and also sentenced to pay fine of
Rs.25,000/- or to undergo SI for six months in default. The
appellant is granted four weeks time to deposit the fine.
The file be sent back alongwith the copy of this judgment.
The Trial Court shall take steps to commit the appellant to
judicial custody to undergo the sentence imposed upon him in
default of payment of fine, if the amount of fine is not deposited
by him within four weeks from today.
(V.K.JAIN)
JUDGE
JANUARY 19, 2010
bg
