[email protected] vs The State
2016 Latest Caselaw 7560 Del

$~
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                        +         CRL.A. No.322/2001
                                     Date of Decision : 23rd December, 2016
     [email protected]                                       ..... PETITIONER
                 Through                  Mr.Manoj Sharma, Adv. with
                                          Mr.Saurabh Sharma, Adv.

                            versus

     THE STATE                                    ..... RESPONDENT

                            Through       Mr.Sudershan Joon, APP for State.

     CORAM:
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
     P.S.TEJI, J

1. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 18th April,

2001 convicting the appellant finding her guilty under Sections

21/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act,

1985 (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act, 1985) and order on

sentence dated 19th April, 2001 vide which the sentence was passed

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to

pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for the offence punishable under

Section 21 of the NDPS Act, in default of payment of fine, convict

was to suffer further simple imprisonment for three years.

2. The facts in brief are that a secret information was received

on the basis of which the police of Narcotic Branch, on 13th

November, 1999 at about 12.15 p.m., apprehended the appellant

[email protected] from Nala while coming from Pankha Road side.

Notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985 was issued but the

accused refused to exercise the said option and then SI offered

search by lady Cont.Kanta. However, the accused refused to be

searched by the lady Constable Kanta. On search, 50 gram of

smack was alleged to have been recovered from her possession.

Out of 50 gram smack recovered, two samples of five grams each

were separated and were marked as 'A' & 'B' and remaining

smack was kept in the same polythene from which the same was

recovered and marked as 'C'. It appears from the record that the

sample parcels and remaining smack were converted into three

different parcels and form FSL was filled. All the parcels and FSL

form were thereafter sealed with the seal of ASY. A seizure memo

was prepared in this regard; FIR No.26/1999 was registered by

Police Station Narcotics, Kamla Market, Delhi and the appellant

was arrested. It emerges from the record that charge under Section

21 of the NDPS Act was framed against the accused to which she

pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. The prosecution had examined as many as nine prosecution

witnesses namely PW 1 Mrs.Kamlesh Miglani; PW 2 Cont.Luder

Mani; PW 3 Cont. Satbir Singh;; PW 4 Cont.Ajit Singh;; PW 5 HC

Bijender Singh; PW 6 SI Dasrath Singh; PW 7 Lady Cont.Kanta;

PW 8 HC Bharat Singh; PW 9 Inspt.Sahib Ram & PW 10 HC Nar

Singh Inspt.Mahesh Sharma & PW 9 Cont.Sumer Singh; PW 10

HC Nar Singh & PW 11 SI Attar Singh. The statement of the

accused [email protected] was recorded under Section 313 of the

Cr.P.C.

4. The appellant was held guilty by the learned Special Judge,

Delhi and by an order dated 19th April, 2001, sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of rupees one lakh for

the offence punishable under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE

(a) The main ground of challenge is that the impugned judgment

is contrary to law in as much as the mandatory provisions of the

NDPS Act have not been complied with. The notice given by the

investigating officer under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was

mentioned in the FIR and that the possibility of non-compliance of

Section 50 of the Act cannot be ruled out. The other ground taken

up is that the Trial Court did not take into consideration the fact

that the raiding team did not join any public witness thereby

causing prejudice to the appellant. Further ground taken is that the

impugned judgment is bad in law inasmuch as learned ASJ did not

take into consideration the fact that PW 7 Lady Ct.Kanta in her

testimony, could not assign satisfactory explanation regarding the

non-joining of public witness despite availability of two hours

between the receipt of secret information and conducting raid. It is

also challenged by learned counsel for the appellant that the

alleged secret information was not reduced to writing which casts

aspersion on the story of the prosecution. The impugned judgment

is also challenged on the ground that the learned Trial Court failed

to appreciate the fact that as per the prosecution, five grams of

sample was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for its

examination; however, the FSL received only four and a half grams

of sample which casts serious doubts on the story of the

prosecution. A challenge to the judgment passed by learned

Additional Sessions Judge, is also laid on the ground that the

possibility of tampering with the case property cannot be ruled out

inasmuch as the case property sealed by PW 11 Attar Singh, IO

was not handed over to the private individual witness and that the

same was given to SI Prem Chand posted in the same department.

Challenge is also made on the ground that all the witnesses in the

alleged recovery were police witnesses and that there was no eye

witness. It is further a ground of challenge that the case property

was not immediately handed over to the SHO concerned and that in

the Malkhana register, there was no entry as to who deposited the

case property in the police station.

5. Apart from challenging the judgment of conviction, learned

counsel for the appellants further submitted that in the nominal roll

filed by the Deputy Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar on 3rd

January, 2003, it was mentioned that as on 2nd January, 2003, the

appellant had undergone sentence of three years and six days.

6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the

appellant relied on the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in

Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. Stae of Rajasthan 2013(1)LRC

100(SC).

7. Per contra, arguments advanced by learned Additional

Public Prosecutor for the State is that the appellant was rightly held

guilty under Sections 21/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. It is submitted that on secret

information received by the police, the search was affected through

a lady constable after serving the notice under Section 50 of the

NDPS Act giving her option to give search either before a Gazetted

Officer or a Magistrate which the appellant declined and that sixty

gram of smack was recovered from her possession.

8. Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant as

well as learned Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI have been

heard.

(I) PW 1 Mrs. Kamlesh Miglani, in her testimony deposed that

while working as Senior Scientific Officer (Chemistry), she

received sample parcel sealed with the seal of ASY. The same was

marked for analysis and that she found that seal on the sample

parcel was the same seal as on the specimen parcel. She in her

statement deposed that the sample was found to contain light

brown powder of approx. 4.5 gm which upon examination, was

found to contain diacetylmorphine and that the same was exhibited

as Exh.PW 1/A.

(II) PW 2 Const.Luder Mani who was posted in PS Narcotic

Branch, Kamla Market deposed that he along with PW 11 SI Attar

Singh; SI Prem Chand & PW 7 Lady Cont.Kanta reached at

Pankha Road at about 11.00 a.m. and that PW 11 SI Attar Singh &

SI Prem Chand briefed the staff and held nakabandi. Thereafter,

PW 11 SI Attar Singh handed over to him one rukka, three parcels

marked 'A'; 'B' & 'C' from CFSL with the seal of ASY and copy

of seizure memo. The said witness gave rukka to the duty officer

and the remaining three parcels and copy of seizure memo to the

SHO. This witness deposed that none of the case property was

tampered with as long as the same was in his custody.

(III) PW 3 Cost.Satbir Singh in his statement deposed that while

posted at PS Narcotics Branch, Kamla Market, Delhi, he received a

sample parcel sealed with the seal of ASY & SR vide RC No.36/21

from HC Vijender Singh and that the same was deposited by him

with the FSL Malviya Nagar. This witness also deposed that as

long as the case property was in his possession, it was not tampered

with.

(IV) PW 4 Ct.Ajit Singh deposed that while posted in PS

Narcotics Branch, he received the sample parcel mark 'A' and FSL

form both duly sealed with the seal of ASY& SR from HC

Vijender Singh vide RC No.34/21 for getting the same submitted to

the FSL, Malviya Nagar but the receipt of same was refused to him

for the reason that the same was not given along with the

forwarding letter of DCP, Crime & Railways. This witness

returned the sample parcel along with the FSL Form intact to

MHC(M) along with RC No.34/21. This witness also deposed that

as long as the case property was in his possession, it was not

tampered with.

(V) PW 5 HC Bijender Singh in his statement stated that while

posted at PS Narcotics Branch, he received three sealed parcels

'A'; 'B' & 'C' from Inspector Sahib Ram, SHO; CFSL form

bearing seal of ASY & SR along with copy of seizure memo and

that the same were entered by him in the register no.19 at serial

no.86. This witness further deposed that on 1st December, 1999, he

had sent sample parcel mark 'A' along with the sealed FSL form to

FSL, Malviya Nagar which were, however, not accepted for the

reason that one of the paper was mistakenly not attested. This

witness next stated that on 13th November, 1999, SI Dashratha

Singh had deposited the articles found during house search which

included seven watches of different make, a mobile phone, 2.7 k.g.

coins of different denomination worth Rs.10,547/-.

(VI) PW 6 SI Dasrath Singh in his statement stated that while

posted at PS Narcotics Branch, he received the investigation of this

case and that he along with PW 2 Const.Luder Mani, visited the

spot. This witness stated that upon reaching the spot, he received

the original rukka and copy of the FIR from the DO. Thereafter,

this witness received the papers prepared by PW 11 SI Attar Singh

and that a site plan Exh.PW 6/A was chalked out by him when PW

11 SI Attar Singh; SI Prem Chand & PW 7 Lady Ct. Kanta were

also present. This witness further recorded the statement of PW 2

Ct.Luder Mani and PW 11 SI Attar Singh, interrogated the accused

[email protected] and arrested her vide personal search memo

Exh.PW 6/B. PW 6 further deposed that he along with the team

visited the house of the accused, carried out a search and recovered

seven watches of different make, a mobile phone, 2.7 k.g. coins of

different denomination worth Rs.10,547/- vide recovery memo

Exh.PW 6/C. Thereafter, the disclosure statement Exh.PW 6/D of

the accused was recorded by this witness whereafter he produced

the accused and the case file before the SHO. This witness

deposited the recovered articles with the MHC(M), recorded the

statement of the witnesses; got the accused medically examined

vide Exh.PW 6/F. The application made to the JPN Hospital in

this regard is Exh.PW 6/F while medical report is Exh.PW 6/G.

This witness further deposed that he sent the sample parcel through

Const.Ajit Singh but initially the same were not accepted but later

on during his absence, the same were sent to FSL Malviya Nagar

by ASI Manwar Patwal. The sample parcel and investigation were

again handed over to this witness who filed the same to Court.

(VII) PW 7 Lady Constable Kanta in her statement deposed while

she was posted at PS Narcotic Branch, on 13th November, 1999,

after receiving secret information regarding possession of

contraband i.e. smack with the accused, she along with SI Prem

Chand, PW 11 SI Attar Singh & PW 2 Ct.Luder Mani when to the

spot. She further deposed that upon reaching the spot, PW 11 SI

Attar Singh asked the five to seven passers by for becoming part of

the raiding party but none of them joined. Thereafter, PW 11 SI

Attar Singh briefed the staff on the basis of which nakabandi was

effected. The said witness further stated that the accused

[email protected] was apprehended on the pointing out of the secret

informer, who was thereafter served with a notice Exh.PW 7/A

under Section 50 of the NDPS Act by PW 11 SI Attar Singh,

informing her about possession of contraband i.e. smack. She also

deposed that it was explained to the accused that she would be

required to be searched and if she wanted, she could be searched

before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, to which the accused

declined in writing which is marked as Exh.PW 7/B. The said

witness thereafter conducted a search upon the accused and

recovered a while colour polythene packet containing brown colour

powder which upon checking, was found to be smack weighing 50

grams. This witness further stated that out of the said quantity of

smack recovered, two samples of five grams each were separated

and was marked 'A' & 'B' and the remaining 40 grams was kept

back in the polythene from which it was recovered and the same

was marked as parcel 'C' while the CFSL form was filled in and all

the said three parcels bearing the seal of ASY were handed over to

SI Prem Chand. The rukka was also prepared by PW 11 SI Attar

Singh before this witness, which was later on taken by PW 2 Luder

Mani along with the three parcels & CFSL form vide seizure memo

Exh.PW 7/C. Thereafter PW 7 Ct.Kanta in her statement stated

that she accompanied the team for conducting the search at the

house of the accused from where they recovered articles which

included seven watches of different make, a mobile phone, 2.7 k.g.

coins of different denomination worth Rs.10,547/-.

(VIII) PW 8 HC Bharat Singh in his statement stated that

while posted at PS Narcotic Branch as duty officer, he received a

rukka from PW 2 Luder Mani which was sent by PW 10 SI Attar

Singh and based thereon, he recorded FIR No.26/99 in his

handwriting and signed it. The carbon copy thereof is Exh.PW

8/A. This witness next stated that on the direction of the SHO,

further investigation of the case was given to PW 6 SI Dashrath

Singh.

(IX) PW 9 Inspt.Sahib Ram in his statement stated that

while posted as SHO at PS Narcotic Branch, secret information

was received by SI Attar Singh and the secret information was

produced before him who apprised them that the accused

[email protected] while reaching her residence via Pankha Road at

about 12 noon on 13th November, 1999, would be in possession of

smack. This witness thereafter stated that this position was

apprised to the ACP following which PW 10 Attar Singh was to

constitute raiding party. On the same day at about 2.55 p.m., PW 2

Const.Luder Mani produced before this witness the case property

comprising of three sealed parcels 'A'; 'B' & 'C'; CFSL form

bearing seal of ASY along with copy of seizure memo. This

witness further stated in his statement that he affixed the seal of SR

on all the three parcels and CFSL form and that the same was

handed over to MHC(M), PW 5 HC Bijender Singh upon which

DD No.11 was lodged.

(X) PW 10 HC Nar Singh in his statement stated that

while posted as SO to ACP, PS Narcotic Branch, a report under

Section 57 of the NDPS Act was received through SHO on which

he gave diary no.53/SO/ACP/N&CP and this witness produced this

report before the ACP who signed the same at point 'A'. This

report in original was exhibited as Exh.PW 10/A.

(XI) PW 11 SI Attar Singh in his stated that while posted at

PS Narcotic Branch, on 13th November, 1999 at about 9.45 a.m. he

received a secret information to the effect that one lady namely

[email protected] , resident of Chankaya Place, while going to her

house via Pankha Road, would be having smack in her possession.

This witness apprised this information to the SHO who thereafter

informed the same to the ACP. This witness further stated that he

recorded departure entry DD No.6 which is Exh.PW 8/B. This

witness accompanied by SI Prem Chand; PW 7 Lady Ct. Kanta;

PW 2 Ct.Luder Mani and Ct.Driver Vijay along with the secret

informer, reached the spot at about 11.00 a.m. This witness in his

statement stated that at about 12.15 p.m., the accused

[email protected] was apprehended upon being pointed out by the

secret information. This witness informed the accused that he got

information of her possessing contraband i.e. smack and thereby

served upon her notice Exh.PW 7/A under Section 50 of the NDPS

Act. The witness thereafter offered the accused to be searched

before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate to which she declined

which was recorded in writing and exhibited as Exh.PW 7/B. This

witness thereafter asked the accused that she could be searched

through a lady constable but the accused [email protected] refused

to permit her search. This witness, thereafter, directed PW 7

Lady Ct.Kanta to effect search upon the accused on one side and

upon search, PW 7 Lady Ct.Kanta recovered brown colour powder

which upon checking, was found to be smack weighing 50 grams.

This witness further stated that out of the said quantity of smack

recovered, two samples of five grams each were separated and

were marked 'A' & 'B' and the remaining 40 grams was kept back

in the polythene from which it was recovered and the same was

marked as parcel 'C' while the CFSL form was filled in and all the

said three parcels bearing the seal of ASY were handed over to SI

Prem Chand. Thereafter, rukka was prepared by this witness

which was marked as Exh.PW 11/A. This witness thereafter gave

the rukka and the case property to PW 2 Luder Mani along with the

three parcels & CFSL form vide seizure memo Exh.PW 7/C. This

witness further stated that at about 4.15 p.m. on the same day, PW

6 SI Dasrath Singh along with PW 2 Ct.Luder Mani and Driver

Vijay reached the spot upon which further investigation was

handed over to PW 6 SI Dasrath Singh who prepared the site plan

Exh.PW 6/A at his instance. The accused was also arrested by PW

6 SI Dasrath Singh before this witness. This witness also

accompanied PW 6 Dasrath Singh for conducting the house search

of the accused.

9. Thus, as per the testimony of PW 11 SI Attar Singh, on the

date of incident, on receipt of secret information that the appellant

who was in possession of contraband i.e. smack, he organised a

raiding party. A raid was conducted and the accused was

apprehended at Nala, near Chanan Devi Hospital. A notice under

Section 50 of the NDPC Act, 1972 Exh.PW 7/A was served upon

her and thereafter on her search, brown colour powder was

recovered which upon checking, was found to be smack weighing

50 grams. After preparing a separate sample packet, remaining

smack was seized. Rukka Exh.PW 11/A was prepared and case

was got registered. PW 6 SI Dasrath Singh prepared site plan PW

6/A. Search of the appellant was conducted by PW 7 Lady

Ct.Kanta. The information about the arrest of the appellant was

given to her son Harbans vide memo Ex.PW 6/E and a report under

Section 57 of the NDPS Act was prepared. PW 11 SI Attar Singh

identified the pouch recovered from the appellant, two samples of

five grams each separated and marked 'A' & 'B' and the remaining

40 grams marked as 'C' kept back in the polythene from which it

was recovered.

10. The testimony of PW 11 SI Attar Singh has duly been

corroborated by other raiding party members i.e. SI Prem Chand;

PW 7 Lady Ct. Kanta; PW 2 Ct.Luder Mani & Ct.Driver Vijay.

All these witnesses in a same breath have stated that raid was

conducted in which the appellant was apprehended with the

contraband i.e. smack. They have also stated in the same line that

the proceedings were conducted by the investigating officer and the

in-charge of raiding team at the spot and that recovery of smack, its

seizure, search of appellant, notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act

were served upon the appellant and the other proceedings were

effected.

11. All the above witnesses were cross-examined at length but

the defence had failed to put any dent to their testimony. They

remained unshaken with regard to conducting of raid and

apprehension of the appellant with the contraband i.e. smack. They

have also stated in a single voice that smack weighing 50 grams

was recovered from the appellant; serving of notice under Section

50 of the NDPS Act upon her and with regard to the proceedings

conducted at the spot.

12. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there

was no proper service of notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act

upon the appellant, is without any basis inasmuch as notice under

Section 50 of the NDPS Act Exh.PW 7/A shows that after

apprehension of the appellant, she was offered to get herself

searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or a Magistrate

before conducting her search. Endorsement Exh.PW 7/B on the

said notice Exh.PW 7/A shows that the appellant herself chose not

to be searched before any gazetted officer or a magistrate. She also

chose not to be searched through any female. Refusal of the

accused/appellant was recorded in her own handwriting and

marked as Exh.PW 7/B. This clearly proves that the contents of

notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act were duly explained to

the appellant before conducting her search and thus there is

mandatory compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act by the

police before conducting search of the appellant.

13. The testimony of the raiding party members has also been

duly corroborated by CFSL report which shows that when the

sealed sample was opened and examined, the same was identified

as diacetylmorphine. The FSL report duly proves the case of the

prosecution that the recovered substance from the appellant was a

contraband i.e. smack.

14. The discussion made above shows that the testimony made

by the police officials including the raiding party members is

trustworthy and their testimony coupled with CFSL report brings

the case of prosecution within the four corners of the alleged

commission of offence which culminated into the conviction of the

appellant. This court is of the considered opinion that the

prosecution has successfully proven the guilt of the appellant.

15. As a result, no error or illegality is found in the view taken

by the Trial Court and the judgment of conviction dated 18th April,

2001 and the same is upheld.

16. A prayer is made by learned counsel for the appellant to the

effect that a lenient view may be taken in terms of sentence

awarded to the appellant keeping in view the fact that the appellant

is facing trial since 1999 and that almost seventeen years have been

elapsed. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted

that the appellant was awarded punishment under the Narcotic

Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 which was amended

in the year 2001 and in view of the amended Act, the punishments

for the offences under the Act, have been reduced. Likewise, the

sentence in the present case may also be reduced.

17. In the judgment passed by the High Court of Rajasthan, it

was held as under:-

"When a legislation is brought into existence, it is for the benefit of the people and the Court should give such interpretation which is not only beneficial to the person who takes benefit out of it but it should also be in consonance with the Statement of Objects and Reasons given in the Amending provisions. The Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Bill is as follows:

Statement of Objects and Reasons:-

Amendment Act 9 of 2001:- The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 provides deterrent punishment for various offences relating to illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Most of the offences invite uniform punishment of minimum ten years rigorous imprisonment which may extend upto twenty years. While the Act envisages severe punishments for drug traffickers, it envisages reformative approach towards addicts. In view of the general delay in trial, it has been found that the addicts prefer not to invoke the provisions of the Act. The strict bail provisions under the Act add to their misery. Therefore, it is proposed to rationalise the sentence structure so as to ensure that while drug traffickers who traffic in significant quantities of drugs are punished with deterrent sentences, the addicts and those who commit less serious offences are sentenced to less severe punishment. This requires rationalisation of the sentence structure, provided under the Act. It is also proposed to restrict the application of strict bail provisions to those offenders who indulge in serious offences.

12. This Statement of Objects & Reasons itself is beneficial for the interest of the accused who are languished in jail for a considerable time on account of being minimum ten years punishment

in contraband drugs and are denied right of bail as against those who are indulged in large scale quantity of drugs trafficking. This Amendment provides rationalization in the matter of grant of bail as well as in the matter of awarding sentence by distinguishing the narcotic drugs & psychotropic substances in three categories viz;

(i) small, (ii) commercial and (iii) in between small & commercial. If the legislation is silent on a particular issue which his apparently in the present case about applicability of the Amending Act' In case where sentence has been passed prior to Amendment and no appeal has been filed after the Amendment, then the Court should give that interpretation which is in furtherance of the intention of the legislature given under its preamble or Statement of Objects & Reasons." [Prema alias Prem Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan in S.B. Crl.J. Appeal No.738/2001 Dt.19.07.2007]

18. This Court on similar facts and circumstances, has held as

under:-

"It is a fundamental right of every person that he should not be subjected to greater penalty than what the law prescribes, and no ex post facto legislation is permissible for escalating the severity of the punishment. But if any subsequent legislation would downgrade the harshness of the sentence for the same office, it would be a salutary principle for administration of criminal justice to suggest that the said legislative benevolence can be extended to the accused who awaits judicial verdict regarding sentence."

[Sultan Vs. State 2004 (73) DRJ 460]

19. India is a party to three United Nations Drug Conventions

and to give effect to the treaties, NDPS 1985 enacted in order to

provide adequate penalties for drug trafficking, strengthen

enforcement powers, implement international conventions to which

India was a party and enforce controls over the contraband.

NDPS Amendment Act 1989 came into effect to combat drug

trafficking which was influenced by the signing of 1988 Convention

by India. After this amendment, people caught with small amounts

of drugs faced long prison sentences and hefty fines. The said

amendment of 1989 was criticized for harsh and disproportionate

sentencing structure and a momentum for reform was created. By

way of amended Act of 2001, scale of sentencing and fine was

reduced depending upon the substance and quantity found. It

basically provides for determining the amount of drugs involved in

an offence while sentencing an accused. It also provides for

deterrent punishment for the drug traffickers while a reformative

approach towards addicts has been adopted. Therefore, three

different quantity of drugs have been involved i.e. small,

commercial or intermediate while sentencing. The legislature was

wise enough to provide different punishments for possessing small

or commercial quantity of drugs.

20. The amended Act of 2001 is a beneficial legislation which

provides for lesser punishment in case of drug addicts who are

found with the lesser quantity of prohibited substance as

compared to the drug traffickers who are found having

commercial quantity of contraband which attracts harsh

punishment and hefty fines.

21. In the present case, the appellant has already undergone

three years and six days incarceration for possession of 50 grams of

smack. The peculiar circumstances of the present case are that the

appellant was arrested on 13th November, 1999 and as per the

sentence awarded to her, she would have completed ten years in

the year 2009 if she remained confined in jail for the said period.

Keeping in view the judgment in the case of Sultan (supra) and

the beneficial provisions of the amended NDPS Act of 2001, the

sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already

undergone with fine of Rs.1,00,000 /-. In default of payment of

fine, the appellant shall undergo the sentence awarded by the Trial

Court.

22. The appellant is directed to pay the fine within a period of

one month else surrender before the trial court concerned to serve

the sentence in default of payment of fine.

23. With the above modification in the sentence of

imprisonment, the present appeal is disposed of.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE DECEMBER 23, 2016 aa