Siya Ram Mehto vs State (Gnct) Of Delhi
2011 Latest Caselaw 5842 Del

$~12 & $~24

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+          CRL. A. 702/2009 & CRL. A. 1492/2011

%               Judgment delivered on: 30th November, 2011

        SIYA RAM MEHTO                      ..... Appellant
                     Through: Ms. Nandita Rao, Adv.

                        versus

        STATE (GNCT) OF DELHI               ..... Respondent
                      Through: Mr. Naveen Sharma, APP for State.


AND

        SUREN MANDAL                       ..... Appellant
                    Through: Ms. Nandita Rao, Adv.

                        versus

        STATE (GNCT) OF DELHI               ..... Respondent
                      Through: Mr.Naveen Sharma, APP for State.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

+ CRL. M.A. 18657/2011 in CRL. A. 1492/2011 Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions.

Criminal M.A. stands disposed of.

CRL. M.A. 18656/2011 in CRL. A. 1492/2011

Delay condoned.

+         CRL. A.702/2009 & CRL. A.1492/2011

1.        Notice issued.

2. Ld. APP accepts notice on behalf of the State.

3. At the request of ld. Counsel for parties, these two appeals are taken for final disposal as both are arising out of the same judgment.

4. Ms. Nandita Rao, Adv. has been appointed as Amicus Curiae in the instant Appeals.

5. She submits that vide judgment dated 20.07.2006, both the appellants were found guilty for the offences under Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/61/85 of NDPS Act and vide order on sentence dated 25.07.2006, both the appellants were sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 10 years with a fine of Rs.1 Lac each.

6. Ms. Nandita Rao, ld. Amicus Curiae has filed the connected Appeal vide no. 1492/2011, which has taken up on adjudication today itself.

7. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants do not dispute to the judgment dated 20.07.2006. However, they are seeking to modify the order on sentence dated 25.07.2006, whereby both the appellants were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 10 years along with a fine of Rs.1 Lac each.

8. She further clarified that she does not dispute even the sentence of 10 years. However, as the appellants belong to lower strata of the society, therefore, she has prayed to modify the punishment awarded in

default of payment of fine of Rs.1 Lac. She further submits that both the appellants have already undergone more than 8 years out of the total sentence awarded to them. She further relied upon decision rendered by this Court on 03.08.2010 in Crl.Appeal No. 104/2003 titled as Raj Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi

9. Keeping in view the poor financial condition of the appellants, I modify the order on sentence dated 25.07.2006 and reduce the RI from one year to 15 days in default of payment of fine of Rs.1 Lac.

10. Copy of this order be sent to Jail Superintendent for information and compliance.

11. Accordingly, Crl.A. 702/2009 and Crl.A1492/2011 are partially allowed.

12. Dasti.

SURESH KAIT, J

NOVEMBER 30, 2011 Jg