Delhi High Court
Arif Warsi vs State (Nct) Of Delhi on 10 February, 2011
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: 19th January , 2011
Date of Order: 10th February, 2011
+ Crl. Appeal No. 768/2005 & Crl.M.A.No. 18690/2010
% 10.02.2011
Arif Warsi ... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Bhupesh Narula, Advocate
With Mr. Raj Mangal & Ms. Rakhi Dubey, Advs.
Versus
State (NCT) of Delhi ... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for the State
With ASI Mr. Rajveer Singh
+ Crl. Appeal No. 886/2004
% 10.02.2011
Jeevan Devi ... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Ritu Gauba, Advocate
Versus
State (NCT) of Delhi ... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for the State
With ASI Mr. Rajveer Singh
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
In these appeals the appellants have already undergone the
substantive sentence awarded to the appellants. The appellants were guilty
of offence under NDPS Act and were awarded RI for ten years, which is the
minimum sentence provided under NDPS Act and fine of Rs.1 lac in default of
payment of fine, SI for two years. The counsel for the appellants have
pleaded that appellants do not want to assail the order on merits and only
press for reduction of sentence in lieu of payment of fine since the appellants
were poor persons. Learned Counsel relied on Shanti Lal v. State of MP
(2008) 1 SCC (Cri.) 1.
2. In Shanti Lal (supra) case the question of awarding sentence in
lieu of fine was considered by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court
observed as under:
39. We are mindful and conscious that the present case is
under the NDPS Act. Section 18 quoted above provides
penalty for certain offences in relation to opium poppy and
opium. Minimum fine contemplated by the said provision is
rupees one lakh ("fine which shall not be less than one lakh
rupees"). It is also true that the appellant has been ordered
to undergo substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment
for ten years which is minimum. It is equally true that
maximum sentence imposable on the appellant is twenty
years. The learned Counsel for the State again is right in
submitting that Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 30
Cr.P.C. authorizes the court to award imprisonment in
default of payment of fine up to one-fourth term of
imprisonment which the Court is competent to inflict as
punishment for the offence. But considering the
circumstances, placed before us on behalf of the appellant-
accused that he is very poor; he is merely a carrier, he has
to maintain his family; it was his first offence; because of his
poverty, he could not pay the heavy amount of fine (rupees
one lakh) and if he is ordered to remain in jail even after the
period of substantive sentence is over only because of his
inability to pay fine, serious prejudice will be caused not only
to him, but also to his family members who are innocent.
We are, therefore, of the view that though an amount of
payment of fine of rupees one lakh which is minimum as
specified in Section 18 of the Act, cannot be reduced in view
of the legislative mandate, ends of justice would be met if we
retain that part of the direction, but order that in default of
payment of fine of rupees one lakh, the appellant shall
undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months instead of
three years as ordered by the trial court and confirmed by
the High Court."
3. Considering that the appellants in this case are also poor
persons, I allow the appeal to the extent that the sentence in lieu of payment
of fine of Rs.1 lac awarded to the appellants shall stand modified and the
appellants shall undergo SI for eight months each instead of SI for two years
in lieu of payment of fine.
February 10, 2011 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vn
