Delhi High Court
Mausam Ali vs The State (Delhi Admn.) on 18 November, 2015
#R-6B
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 18.11.2015
CRL.A. 493/2008
MAUSAM ALI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr Mohd. Saleem, Mr Mohd.
Khursheed and Mr Mohd. Tabrez,
Advocates.
versus
THE STATE (DELHI ADMN.) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr Rajat Katyal, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
1. The present is an appeal under Section 374(2) read with Section 397
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 assailing the judgment and order on
sentence dated 07.05.2008 and 08.05.2008 respectively. The appellant has
been convicted under Sections 489C and 489D IPC and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years for the offence
punishable under Section 489C IPC. The appellant has been further
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and a
fine of Rs.2,000/- in default simple imprisonment for a period of one month
for the offence punishable under Section 489D IPC. Both the sentences have
been directed to run concurrently.
2. As per the prosecution on 08.07.2004 they received secret information
that one person who supplies counterfeit currency notes would come by
Metro Rail and would go to Inderlok Cooler Market to supply counterfeit
notes. Based on this information a raiding party apprehended one Farzanda.
The said Farzanda, who was convicted along with appellant, was found
carrying a polythene bag, a search of which led to the recovery of counterfeit
currency notes in the denomination of Rs.500/- as well as Rs.100/-. On the
disclosure statement of Farzanda, the appellant who resides at Mawana in
Uttar Pradesh was arrested from his house and ten notes of Rs.1,000/- each,
forty-four notes of Rs.500/- each and ten notes of Rs.50/- each were alleged
to have been recovered from his house. A photocopy machine is also stated
to have been recovered from the residence of the appellant.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he has instructions from
the appellant, who is present in person, not to challenge his conviction on
merits. However, counsel contends that a lenient view may be taken and the
appellant may be released on the period already undergone which is more
than 2½ years out of the total sentence of five years awarded to him by the
trial court.
4. It has been contended that the appellant has aged parents who are
ailing, a young wife and a four year old daughter who are entirely dependent
on him for care and support.
5. In B.G. Goswami vs. Delhi Administration, 1973 SCC (Crl.) 796, the
Supreme Court observed as under:-
"Now the question of sentence is always a difficult
question, requiring as it does, proper adjustment and
balancing of various considerations which weigh with
a judicial mind in determining its appropriate quantum
in a given case. The main purpose of the sentence
broadly stated is that the accused must realise that he
has committed an act which is not only harmful to the
society of which he forms an integral part but is also
harmful to his own future, both as an individual and as
a member of the society. Punishment is designed to
protect society by deterring potential offenders as also
by preventing the guilty party from repeating the
offence; it is also designed to reform the offender and
reclaim him as a law abiding citizen for the good of the
society as a whole. Reformatory, deterrent and
punitive aspects of punishment thus play their due part
in judicial thinking while determining this question. In
modern civilized societies, however, reformatory
aspect is being given somewhat greater importance.
Too lenient as well as too harsh sentence both lose
their efficaciousness. One does not deter and the other
may frustrate, thereby making the offender a hardened
criminal. In the present case, after weighing the
considerations already noticed by us and the fact that
to send the appellant back to jail now after seven years
of the agony and harassment of these proceedings
when he is also going to lose his job and has to earn a
living for himself and for his family members and for
those dependent on him, we feel that it would meet the
ends of justice if we reduce the sentence of
imprisonment to that already undergone but increase
the sentence of fine from Rs 200 to Rs 400. Period of
imprisonment in case of default will remain the same."
6. I have perused the nominal roll qua the appellant. It is observed that
his conduct in jail has been satisfactory from the inception of his
incarceration. The appellant is thirty-five years old as of today and was
barely twenty-three years of age at the time of the commission of the
offence.
7. There is no gainsaying the doctrine that punishment is designed to
protect society by deterring potential offenders as also by preventing the
guilty party from repeating the offence; it is also designed to reform the
offender and reclaim him as a law abiding citizen for the good of the society
as a whole.
8. The present appeal was instituted in the year 2008 and the sentence
awarded to the appellant has been under suspension since then. To send the
appellant back to jail now after such a long gap would tantamount not only
to inflicting agony and harassment on the appellant but would reduce his
family members to penury considering that he is the sole breadwinner.
9. Having regard to the totality of circumstances, while upholding the
conviction, the sentence awarded to the appellant, is reduced to the period
already undergone by him. The appellant shall be set free if not wanted in
any other case.
10. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
11. A copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for the parties.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
NOVEMBER 18, 2015
mk
