Delhi High Court
Mohsim Ali vs State on 22 July, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 22nd July, 2014
+ CRL. M.C. No. 2866/2014
MOHSIM ALI .... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Avninder Singh, Adv.
Versus
STATE .... Respondent
Through: Mr. P.K. Saxena, APP
for the State
+ CRL.M.C. 2867/2014
MOHSIM ALI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Avninder Singh, Adv.
Versus
STATE .... Respondent
Through: Mr. P.K. Saxena, APP
for the State
+ CRL.M.C. 2868/2014
MOHSIM ALI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Avninder Singh, Adv.
Versus
STATE .... Respondent
Through: Mr. P.K. Saxena, APP
for the State
Crl.M.C. Nos. 2866-75/2014 Page 1 of 8
+ CRL.M.C. 2869/2014
MOHSIM ALI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Avninder Singh, Adv.
Versus
STATE .... Respondent
Through: Mr. P.K. Saxena, APP
for the State
+ CRL.M.C. 2870/2014
MOHSIM ALI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Avninder Singh, Adv.
Versus
STATE .... Respondent
Through: Mr. P.K. Saxena, APP
for the State
+ CRL.M.C. 2871/2014
MOHSIM ALI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Avninder Singh, Adv.
versus
STATE .... Respondent
Through: Mr. P.K. Saxena, APP
for the State
+ CRL.M.C. 2872/2014
MOHSIM ALI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Avninder Singh, Adv.
Versus
Crl.M.C. Nos. 2866-75/2014 Page 2 of 8
STATE .... Respondent
Through: Mr. P.K. Saxena, APP
for the State
+ CRL.M.C. 2873/2014
MOHSIM ALI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Avninder Singh, Adv.
versus
STATE .... Respondent
Through: Mr. P.K. Saxena, APP
for the State
+ CRL.M.C. 2874/2014
MOHSIM ALI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Avninder Singh, Adv.
Versus
STATE .... Respondent
Through: Mr. P.K. Saxena, APP
for the State
+ CRL.M.C. 2875/2014
MOHSIM ALI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Avninder Singh, Adv.
versus
STATE .... Respondent
Through: Mr. P.K. Saxena, APP
for the State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VED PRAKASH VAISH (ORAL)
Crl.M.C. Nos. 2866-75/2014 Page 3 of 8
JUDGMENT
1. These petitions arise out of order on sentence dated 4.8.2007
passed by learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.
Crl. M.C. No. 2866/2014 arise out of CC No. 89/01/93; Crl.M.C.
2867/2014 arise out of CC No. 215/01; Crl.M.C. 2868/2014 arise out
of CC No. 61/01; Crl.M.C. 2869/2014 arise out of CC No. 89/01/96;
Crl.M.C. 2870/2014 arise out of CC No. 222/01/07; Crl.M.C.
2871/2014 arise out of CC No. 109/01; Crl.M.C. 2872/2014 arise out
of CC No. 76/01; Crl.M.C. 2873/2014 arise out of CC No. 70/01;
Crl.M.C. 2875/2014 arise out of CC No. 123/01/07 and the petition
bearing Crl.M.C. 2874/2014 arise out of order on sentence dated
8.8.2007 in CC No. 43/01 whereby the petitioner was sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.
25,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, the petitioner was to
undergo further simple imprisonment for six months for the offence
under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter
referred to as "Act").
2. Since all the petitions are filed by the petitioner, Mohsim Ali and
involve similar question of law, the same are being disposed of by this
common order.
3. Shorn off the unnecessary details, the brief facts of the case are
that the petitioner was prosecuted for the offence under Section 51 of
the Act on his plea of guilt for unauthorisedly trading in endangered
species of birds vide order dated 1.8.2007. Vide order on sentence
dated 4.8.2007, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in
case of default of payment of fine, the petitioner was to undergo further
simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 51
of the Act. Benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(hereinafter referred as „Cr.P.C‟) was given to the petitioner and it was
ordered that the sentences shall run concurrently with the other
sentences which the convict is undergoing.
4. The petitioner thereafter filed Criminal Appeal against the said
order. Vide order dated 12.2.2009 in CC No. 215/01 learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi maintained the substantive sentence
and reduced the sentence in default of payment of fine from six months
to 1½ months. Vide order dated 23.04.2009 in CC No. 222/01/07
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi maintained that the
substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 3 years shall run
concurrently with the previous sentences awarded to the petitioner in
other cases and the default sentence shall remain for six months. Vide
order dated 18.7.2008 in CC No. 109/01, learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Delhi maintained the substantive sentence and reduced the
sentence in default of payment of fine from six months to one month.
Vide order dated 12.2.2009 in CC No. 76/01 and CC No. 70/01,
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi maintained the substantive
sentence and reduced the sentence in default of payment of fine from
six months to 1½ months respectively. Vide order dated 14.1.2009 in
CC No. 123/01/07, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi
maintained the substantive sentence and reduced the sentence in
default of payment of fine from six months to one month. As per the
nominal roll, in CC No. 89/01/93, the sentence in default of payment of
fine was reduced from six months to one month and in CC No. 61/01,
the sentence in default of payment of fine was reduced from six
months to two months. In CC No. 89/01/96 the substantive sentence of
rigorous imprisonment for 3 years shall run concurrently with the
previous sentences awarded to the petitioner in other cases and the
default sentence shall remain six months. In CC No. 43/01, learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi maintained the substantive sentence
and reduced the sentence in default of payment of fine from six months
to 1½ months.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner has preferred
the present petitions.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is
in custody since January, 2007 and the petitioner has already
completed his substantive sentence of three years. He further submits
that fine of Rs.25,000/- in each case was also imposed and in default of
payment of fine, petitioner was further to undergo simple
imprisonment of six months. Subsequently the petitioner filed an
appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. wherein the learned Additional
Sessions Judge reduced the sentence in default of payment of fine.
7. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the sentence in
default of payment of fine in all the 10 petitions comes to 23 months.
8. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in
judicial custody and could not pay the fine. He also contends that the
petitioner is aged more than 56 years and he has to take care of his
family. The petitioner is suffering from Gall Stone Disease with
Chronic Liver Disease (alcoholic) with Portal Hypertension. A copy of
discharge summary issued by G.B. Pant Hospital and MAM College,
New Delhi has been filed as Annexure P-2 along with the petition.
9. Counsel for the petitioner also urges that the entire family of the
petitioner is dependent on him and is on the verge of starvation
because of his incarcination for the last many years. Counsel thus
prays for releasing the petitioner.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
material placed on record.
11. The petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 51 of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in case of default
of payment of fine, the petitioner was to undergo further simple
imprisonment for six months.
12. Undoubtedly, the petitioner has completed his substantive
sentence. As per nominal roll, the petitioner has already completed
substantive sentence on 28.7.2013 in CC No. 89/1/93, CC No. 61/01,
CC No. 89/01/96, CC No. 222/01/07, CC No. 109/01 and CC No.
70/01 and on 6.10.2013 in CC No. 215/01, CC No. 76/01, CC No.
43/01 and CC No. 123/01/07
13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact
that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 2007 and he has already
completed the substantive sentence as well as the submissions made by
the counsel for the petitioner, in my view, interest of justice would be
met if the sentence in default of payment of fine is reduced to the
period already undergone.
14. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands disposed of.
The petitioner shall be released forthwith in case he is not required in
any other case.
15. A copy of this order be sent to Superintendent Jail for necessary
compliance.
(VED PRAKASH VAISH)
JUDGE
JULY22, 2014
nk
