Delhi High Court
Mukhtiar Singh @ Babloo vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 3 July, 2014
Author: S. P. Garg
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 3rd July, 2014
+ CRL.A. 49/2011
MUKHTIAR SINGH @ BABLOO
..... Appellant
Through : Mr.M.L.Yadav, Advocate.
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP.
+ CRL.A. 439/2011
MUKESH KUMAR @ RAJESH
..... Appellant
Through : Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate.
versus
STATE
..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)
1. Mukhtiar Singh @ Babloo (A-1) and Mukesh Kumar @
Rajesh (A-2) challenge the correctness and legality of a judgment dated
31.07.2010 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case
No.7/07 arising out of FIR No.82/06 registered at Police Station Narcotics
Branch by which they were held guilty under Sections 15/25 NDPS Act.
By an order dated 06.08.2010, A-1 was sentenced to undergo RI for 15
years with fine ` 2 lacs under Section 15 NDPS Act; RI for ten years with
fine `1 lac under Section 25 NDPS Act. A-2 was awarded RI for 10 years
with fine ` 1 lac each under Sections 15/25 NDPS Act. The substantive
sentences were to operate concurrently.
2. The prosecution case as set up in the charge-sheet was that on
12.09.2006 at around 12.30 pm in front of CNG Outlet, Sanjay Gandhi
Transport Nagar, the appellants were found in possession of 1200kg
chura-post. Statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were
recorded. Mandatory provisions of the Act to proceed against the
appellants were complied with. After completion of investigation, a
charge-sheet was submitted against both of them; they were duly charged
under Sections 15/25 NDPS Act and brought to trial. In order to bring
home the guilt, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses. In 313
statements, the appellants denied their involvement in the crime and
pleaded false implication. The trial resulted in their conviction as
aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellants have preferred
the appeals.
3. During the course of hearing of the appeals, Sh.M.L.Yadav
and Shri Ajay Verma, counsel for appellant Nos.1 and 2 respectively, on
instructions, stated at Bar that the appellants have opted not to challenge
the findings of the trial court on conviction. They, however, prayed to
take lenient view and modify the sentence order due to poor economic
condition of the appellants. To this, learned APP for the State has no
objection.
Since the appellants have given up challenge to the findings
on conviction under Sections 15/25 NDPS Act, as recorded by the trial
court in view of the overwhelming evidence regarding recovery of
contraband from their possession, their conviction is affirmed.
4. A-1's nominal roll dated 29.10.2013 reveals that he has
suffered physical incarceration for about six years, three months and
twelve five days till that date. Sentence order records that A-1 has a
family consisting of wife and widow mother to support and there is none
else to take care of them, he being the sole bread-earner of the family.
A-1 was awarded enhanced punishment due to previous conviction in case
FIR No.112/2002 under Section 15 NDPS Act registered at Police Station
Cheeka, District Kaithal, Haryana in which he was awarded RI for ten
years with fine `1 lac. It further reveals that in Crl.A.No.16 SB/2007, the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana modified the sentence for the period
already undergone by him on 11.03.2011. By order dated 12.12.2012 A-1
was given interim bail for three months and there are no allegations of its
misuse by him. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of
the case and the mitigating circumstances, the sentence order is modified
to the extent that substantive sentence under Section 15 NDPS Act would
be RI for 12 years instead of RI for 15 years and the fine amount under
Sections 15/25 NDPS Act would be one lac each and the default sentence
for its non-payment will be SI for three months each.
5. A-2's nominal roll dated 22.08.2013 shows that he suffered
physical incarceration for six years, eleven months and ten days as on
21.08.2013. He is not involved in any other criminal case and is not a
previous convict. His overall jail conduct was satisfactory. Sentence
order reveals that he was the sole bread earner of the family and was to
take care of his family consisting of his wife and three minor daughters.
He has undergone agony of trial/appeal for about 8 years. Considering the
mitigating circumstances, the sentence order is modified to the extent that
the default sentence of fine amount of `1 lac would be SI three months
instead of SI for six months. Other terms and conditions of the sentence
order are left undisturbed.
6. The appeals preferred by the appellants stand disposed of in
the above terms. Trial Court record along with a copy of this order be
sent back forthwith.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
JULY 03, 2014
sa
