Mandeep Kaur @ Jasbir Kaur @ ... vs Directorate Of Revenue ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 1406 Del

$-19
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                               DECIDED ON : 22nd FEBRUARY, 2016

+                                 CRL.A. 325/2014

      MANDEEP KAUR @ JASBIR KAUR @ MANJEET KAUR

                                                        ..... Appellant

                         Through :     Mr.K.S.Bana, Advocate.


                         versus

      DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE..... Respondent

                         Through :     Mr.Vineet Sharma, Proxy counsel
                                       for Mr.Satish Aggarwala,
                                       Advocate.


       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.Garg, J. (Oral)

1. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant - Mandeep

Kaur @ Jasbir Kaur @ Manjeet Kaur to challenge the legality and

correctness of a judgment dated 20.12.2013 of learned Additional

Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.57A/2007 under Sections 21/29

NDPS Act by which she was held guilty for committing offences

punishable under Sections 21(c) & 29 of the NDPS Act. By an order dated

21.12.2013, she was awarded RI for ten years with fine `1 lac each under

both the heads. The sentences were to operate concurrently.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as stated in the complaint

was that on 19.03.2007, Sujeet Kumar, Intelligence Officer received a

specific information that a golden beige coloured Mahindra Bolero

vehicle bearing registration No. HR 70 3719 would cross Singhu Border

located on G.T.Karnal road in between 10.30 p.m. to 11.30 p.m. and

certain narcotic drugs were concealed in the said vehicle; and also a lady

might be an occupant therein. The said information was reduced into

writing (Ex.PW-1/A) and was immediately put up before PW-12 (Pankaj

K.Singh). A raiding team was organized. A 'naka' was held on the road

towards Delhi side. At about 11.00 p.m., a vehicle was seen coming from

Haryana side crossing Singhu Border which was signaled to stop. There

were two individuals in the said vehicle which was being driven by a sikh

gentleman. A lady, later on identified as Mandeep Kaur @ Jasbir Kaur @

Manjeet Kaur (the appellant), was found sitting on the seat adjacent to the

driver's seat. After conducting necessary proceedings and serving notices

(Ex.PW-8/A & Ex.PW-8/B), the vehicle was searched and it resulted in

recovery of 20 packets in all stuffed with some goods from inside cavities

created in the floor of the vehicle. One more cavity in the floor of the

vehicle near the back seat of the vehicle next to the back door was

observed but nothing incriminating was found concealed therein. In

addition to it, documents pertaining to the vehicle was also recovered.

These 20 packets were found containing white colour granular substance,

the gross-weight of which was found to be 20.754 kg. and the net weight

came to be 20.022 kg. heroin. Subsequent proceedings were conducted.

Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded.

Upon completion of investigation, a complaint was filed against the

appellant and her associates - Gurdev Singh and Balwinder Singh @

Dr.Balwinder Singh, who was finally declared Proclaimed Offender. The

trial resulted in conviction of both the appellant and Gurdev Singh.

3. During the course of arguments, appellant's counsel on

instructions stated at Bar that the appellant has opted not to challenge the

findings of the Trial Court on conviction. She, however, prayed to modify

the sentence order as the appellant has already undergone substantive

sentence awarded to her. She is unable to pay the huge fine being in

custody for the last about nine years.

4. Since the appellant has opted to accept the findings of the

Trial Court on conviction, in the presence of overwhelming evidence, her

conviction under Sections 21(c) & 29 of NDPS Act is affirmed.

5. Regarding Sentence Order, it transpires that she has already

undergone almost the entire substantive sentence awarded to her. Nominal

Roll dated 06.05.2014 reveals that she has remained in custody for seven

years, one month and seventeen days as on 06.05.2014. She is not

involved in any other criminal case and is not a previous convict; her

overall jail conduct is satisfactory. Substantive sentence i.e. RI for ten

years each under both the heads can't be modified or altered as it is the

'minimum' sentence prescribed under the Act. Similarly, fine of `1 lac

each which is the minimum amount prescribed under the Section can't be

reduced.

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.

7. Taking into consideration Section 30 of Cr.P.C. and the

judgment of 'Shahejadkhan Mahebubkhan Pathan vs. State of Gujarat',

(supra), the sentence order is modified to the extent that default sentence

for non-payment of fine `1 lac each shall be SI for one month each under

both the offences. Other terms and conditions of the sentence order are

left undisturbed.

8. Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Trial Court

record be sent back forthwith with the copy of the order. A copy of the

order be sent to the Superintendent Jail for information.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE

FEBRUARY 22, 2016 / tr