Delhi High Court
Chherinda Indi Gurunda vs The State (Govt. Of Nct) Delhi on 18 March, 2013
Author: S. P. Garg
$-38
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 18th March, 2013
+ CRL.A. 292/2006 & CRL.M.B.Nos.2096/2011 & 1431/2012
CHHERINDA INDI GURUNDA ..... Appellant
Through : Ms.Rakhi Dubey, Advocate.
Versus
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) DELHI ..... Respondent
Through : Ms.Fizani Husain, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.Garg, J. (Open Court)
1. The appellant- Chherinda Indi Gurunda challenges
correctness of judgment dated 07.01.2006 in Sessions Case No.23/2005
arising out of FIR No.298/2004, PS Timar Pur by which he was held
guilty for committing offence punishable under Section 20 NDPS Act.
Vide order dated 13.01.2006, the appellant was sentenced to undergo RI
for 14 years with fine ` 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to
undergo SI for one year.
2. Allegations against the appellant were that on 08.07.2004 at
about 12.20 P.M. near Pontoon Bridge Turning, Outer Ring road, Timar
Pur, Delhi he was found in possession of 2 kg. of Charas. The prosecution
examined nine witnesses. In his 313 Cr.P.C statement, the appellant
pleaded false implication. The Trial Court after considering the evidence
on record, held the appellant guilty of possessing 2 kg. of Charas in
violation of NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 14 years with fine
` 1,00,000/-. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present
appeal.
3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the
appellant on instructions from the appellant- Chherinda Indi Gurunda
stated that the appellant has opted not to challenge the conviction under
Section 20 NDPS Act. She however, prayed for modification of the order
on sentence as the appellant has already undergone sentence for about
more than 8 years. The appellant is very poor and is unable to deposit the
hefty fine `1,00,000/-. The appellant is not a previous convict.
4. I have considered the submissions of the parties and have
examined the Trial Court record. Since the appellant has not opted to
challenge the findings of the Trial Court on conviction under Section 20
NDPS Act, the order of conviction of the Trial Court stands affirmed.
5. Regarding order on sentence, it reveals that the appellant was
found in possession of 2 kg. of Charas and was sentenced to undergo RI
for 14 years with fine ` 1,00,000/-. Fine ` 1,00,000/- has not been
deposited. Nominal roll dated 25.02.2013 reveals that the appellant has
already undergone sentence for 08 years, 07 months and 15 days as on
25.02.2013. The period has since increased to 08 years, 08 months and 06
days. It further reveals that the appellant is not a previous convict and is
not involved in any other criminal case. His overall conduct in the jail is
satisfactory.
6. In the case of 'Shahejadkhan Mahebubkhan Pathan vs. State
of Gujarat', 2012 (10) SCALE 21, decided on 05.10.2012, the Supreme
Court reduced the sentence from 15 years to 10 years as the appellant
therein had already served nearly 12 years in jail. The order on payment of
fine of ` 1,50,000/- was upheld but default sentence was reduced from RI
for 3 years to RI for 6 months. The appellant therein was found in
possession of 500 grams of brown sugar and was convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 8 (c), 21 and 29 of NDPS Act. The Division
Bench of Gujarat High Court had dismissed the Crl.A.No.11 & 75/2002
vide order dated 08.07.2002. Number of other judgments have been
shown and placed on record whereby similar relief was given in various
cases by this Court.
7. Considering all these facts and circumstances of the case and
in the interest of justice, keeping in mind the peculiar facts of this case,
the order on sentence is modified and the substantive sentence of the
appellant under Section 20 NDPS Act is reduced to RI for 10 (Ten) years.
8. Regarding fine of ` 1,00,000/-, the appellant has expressed
his inability to deposit the amount due to poverty. The amount of `
1,00,000/- imposed by the Trial Court cannot be reduced. However, taking
into consideration Section 30 of Cr.P.C. and the judgment of
'Shahejadkhan Mahebubkhan Pathan vs. State of Gujarat' (supra) where
the default sentence was reduced from three years to six months, it is
ordered that the appellant shall pay a fine of ` 1,00,000/- and in default of
payment of fine he shall undergo SI for a period of four months.
9. The appeal filed by the appellant is disposed of in the above
terms. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
10. A copy of the order be sent to Jail Superintendent, Tihar Jail.
Copy be also sent to the accused/appellant through Jail Superintendent.
Trial Court record along with copy of this order be sent back to the Trial
Court.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
MARCH 18, 2013
tr
