Delhi High Court
Mohd. Saghir @ Sagar @ Ajeet Singh vs The State Of Nct on 21 February, 2011
Author: Ajit Bharihoke
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: February 21, 2011
+ CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1048/2008
MOHD. SAGHIR @ SAGAR @ AJEET SINGH....APPELLANT
Through:Ms.Purnima Sethi, Advocate
Versus
THE STATE OF N.C.T. .....RESPONDENT
Through:Ms.Fizani Husain, APP
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE
1. Whether Reporters of local papers
may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be
reported in Digest ?
AJIT BHARIHOKE, J.(ORAL)
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned order on sentence
dated 7th May, 2007 consequent upon the conviction of the appellant for
offences punishable under Sections 471/419/420 of the Indian Penal
Code(for short `IPC') as well as Section 3/9 of Official Secrets Act and
Section 14 of the Foreigners Act in Sessions Case No.104/2006 FIR
No.153/2004 P.S. Special Cell whereby the appellant, for the offence
under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, has been sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and also to pay a fine of
`5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for one year. For the offence under Section 419 IPC, the appellant has
been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years
and fine of `5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a further period of 6 months and for the offence under
Section 420 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years
and a fine of `5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a further period of 1 year. The appellant is further
sentenced for the offence under Section 471 IPC, to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of `5,000/- and in
default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further
period of 1 year and for the offence under Section 3/9 of Official Secrets
Act, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and a fine of
`5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for a period of 1 year. It was ordered that all the sentences shall run
concurrently.
2. At the outset, it may be noted that the appellant was convicted for
the aforesaid offences on the basis of plea of guilt which was found to be
voluntary by the learned trial Judge.
3. Learned Ms.Purnima Sethi, Amicus Curiae for the appellant has
confined her challenge only to the order on sentence. She submitted that
the appellant is a foreign national who has undergone almost entire period
of the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him. She further submitted
that the appellant, being a foreign national, is not in a position to pay the
fine, therefore taking into account that the appellant has undergone
substantial punishment, his sentence of fine may be waived or the
sentence in default of payment of fine be reduced from 4 ½ years rigorous
imprisonment cumulative to a reasonable period because the said
sentence in default is too harsh.
4. Learned APP, on the other hand, has argued in support of the
sentence awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. She
submitted that the appellant is a foreign national and is guilty of an
offence under Official Secrets Act and he was found in possession of
classified documents relating to the defence installations, therefore he
does not deserve any leniency.
5. I have considered the rival contentions. As per the nominal roll
dated 2nd March, 2010 submitted by Deputy Superintendent, Central Jail-II,
Tihar, New Delhi, the appellant was awarded 7 years rigorous
imprisonment besides the fine of total `25,000/-. Out of the said sentence,
the appellant as on 23rd February, 2010 had already undergone
incarceration for a period of 5 years, 2 months and 27 days actual and he
had earned remission of 8 months and 21 days and on 23rd February,
2010 unexpired portion of his sentence was 1 year and 12 days. Since
23rd February, 2010 exactly 1 year has elapsed. Therefore, it is apparent
that the appellant has undergone custody for a period of almost 7 years,
less 12 days. He has not paid the fine imposed upon him for various
offences which cumulatively amounts to `25,000/- and in default of said
fine, he has been awarded rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 ½
years (cumulatively).
6. In my considered opinion, aforesaid sentence awarded to the
appellant in default of payment of fine for respective offences is too harsh.
Accordingly, the order on sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge is modified to the effect that in default of payment of fine of
`5,000/- for offence under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, the appellant
shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month and in
default of payment of fine of `5,000/- for offence under Section 419 IPC,
the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one
month. Similarly, in default of payment of fine for the offences under
Section 420 IPC, the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of one month and in default of payment of fine for offence under
Section 471 IPC, the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of one month and for default of payment of fine of `5,000/-, the
appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment of one month.
7. In view of the above, the appeal is partially accepted with the above
modifications.
8. Copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent Jail concerned for
compliance.
(AJIT BHARIHOKE)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 21, 2011
ks
