Guddu Ram vs State
2012 Latest Caselaw 5337 Del

*             HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                   CRL. A. No.221/2007
                                            Date of Decision : 06.09.2012

GUDDU RAM                                            ...... Appellant
                                Through:      Appellant in person

                                 versus

STATE                                               ...... Respondent
                                Through:      Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)

1. The appellant has been produced from the Jail.

2. I have heard the appellant, who has stated that although he was directed to be released on bail vide order dated 30.3.2012 on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ` 30,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court and subject to certain conditions, however, he has not been able to take advantage of the said bail order. Accordingly, a fresh application bearing Crl.M.A.13849/2012 has been filed by him for releasing him on personal bond.

3. The notice on the said application was issued for today along with a direction that the convict/appellant be produced in Court. The

appellant has stated that he does not press his application for release on personal bond and he is also not intending to contest the judgment dated 29.3.2005 passed by the Trial Court, holding him guilty for an offence under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the NDPS Act. However, it has been stated by him that as he has already undergone incarceration of 10 years and 6 months, therefore, he is praying that his sentence of RI of 12 years, apart from a fine of ` 1,00,000/-, may be reduced to the period already undergone and simultaneously, the sentence in default of payment of fine, which is fixed as one year, may also be reduced to a reasonable period so that he undergoes the same and is able to join his family after prolonged incarceration. He has also stated that he has been sufficiently punished and, therefore, now be permitted to lead a normal life, as he will not commit any further offence. He has also stated that there is no one in his family to take care of his old aged and ailing parents.

4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the appellant.

5. The appellant was convicted for an offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, as he was found in possession of 4.5 kg. of charas, in contravention of Section 8 of the NPDS Act, on 23.1.2002 at about 1:30 P.M. at Platform No.1, Railway Station, Hazrat Nizamuddin, Delhi. The offence for which he was

found guilty carries a minimum imprisonment of 10 years, which may extend to 20 years and a fine of ` 1,00,000/-, which may extend to ` 2,00,000/-. The learned Special Judge, NDPS, vide order dated 31.3.2005, considering the fact that the appellant was a young boy of 25 years of age at that point of time with clean antecedents and was the only bread earner of the family, apart from the fact that he had old aged parents, thought it fit to sentence him to imprisonment of 12 years, apart from a fine of ` 1,00,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to RI of one year.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the appellant for the reduction of the substantive sentence as well as the sentence which has been imposed in default of payment of fine. The appellant's Nominal Roll shows that he has already undergone a sentence of 10 years and 6 months out of total sentence of 12 years, which is a substantial portion of his substantive sentence. No doubt, the offence, of which the appellant has been convicted, carries a maximum sentence of 20 years, but he was visited only with 12 years of sentence. The learned Special Judge has not indicated any special reasons as to why he had treated 12 years as eminently suited for the appellant. Since I have not been able to discern any special reason for the same, I feel that in my view 10 years and 6 months sentence is

good enough to meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the sentence of the appellant of 12 years is reduced to 10 years and 6 months, which he has already undergone.

7. The appellant has assured this Court that this prolonged incarceration has brought a change in him and he would lead a life of a law abiding citizen, if he is released from the Jail and would migrate to his native place in Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. Though the submission of the appellant has to be accepted with a pinch of salt, but nevertheless, on humanitarian grounds, he must be given another opportunity to reinforce himself in the mainstream. The appellant has also been visited with a minimum fine of `1,00,000/- which was imposed by the trial Court in pursuance to the statute. In default of payment of the said fine, the appellant has been sentenced to RI of one year, which I feel is also excessive. In normal circumstances, it ought to have been 6 months or so. Be that as it may, keeping in view the fact that this Court has reduced the sentence to 10 years and 6 months, I am inclined to reduce the sentence of default in payment of fine from 1 year to 1 month. Ordered accordingly. As the appellant has served the sentence of 10 years and 6 months, he shall be released, if he is not required in any other case, provided the fine is paid or alternatively, in default, sentence of one month is served by him.

8. A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent, Tihar Jail, New Delhi as well as to the appellant for information and necessary action at his end.

9. Appeal stands disposed of. No separate orders are required to be passed on the pending applications.

V.K. SHALI, J SEPTEMBER 06, 2012 tp