Delhi High Court
State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) vs Mohd. Hanif on 6 September, 2016
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 6th SEPTEMBER, 2016
+ CRL.A. 757/2014
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Appellant
Through : Mr.Amit Gupta, APP.
VERSUS
MOHD. HANIF ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Lalit Sharma, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (Oral)
1. Present appeal has been preferred by the State for enhancement
of the sentence awarded to the respondent by a judgment dated 17.04.2014
of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.38/13 arising out of
FIR No.58/13 PS Jama Masjid. The appeal is contested by the respondent.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
examined the file. The respondent was convicted under Section 21 of
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (In short 'the Act')
for being in possession of 20 grams of Smack. By an order dated
17.04.2014, the respondent was sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for a
period of three months and twenty-six days with fine `2,000/-. On that day,
the respondent was present along with his daughter - Reshma. The
respondent was unable to engage any counsel during trial and was assisted
by Amicus Curiae appointed by Delhi State Legal Services Committee. The
respondent prayed for leniency on the ground that he used to help
confectioners in baking chapaties and that was the only source of income to
support his family. He was specifically enquired regarding his conviction
under Section 27 of the Act. To which, he fairly informed that it was in 2008
for personal consumption and since then he has stopped consuming it.
3. Considering all these mitigating circumstances and no previous
conviction of the respondent, lenient view was taken and the respondent was
sentenced to undergo the period already spent by him in custody i.e. three
months and twenty-six days. The respondent had suffered trial for about one
year. At the time of apprehension along with the contraband, he was found
in possession of bank pass-book of his daughter - Reshma and cash
`28,800/-. Nothing has emerged on record if the cash recovered from the
respondent was sale proceeds of the contraband. Nothing has surfaced if
any incriminating article was recovered from the respondent's possession
after his arrest. No further recovery of the contraband was effected from his
residence or place of work. The 'source' from where the respondent had
acquired the contraband was not ascertained. The purpose for which the
respondent was in possession of the narcotics has also not disclosed. No
independent public witness was associated at any stage of the investigation.
4. This Court in 'Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Nthadiseng
Josephina Bulaya & Anr.', 2015 III AD (Crl.) (DHC) 408 observed that the
sole purpose of punishing an offender is not retribution alone and that Courts
while sentencing an offender must make attempt, within parameters of law,
to afford opportunity to offender to reform himself and lead life of normal,
useful member of society. In the instant case, the respondent is not a
hardened criminal. Nothing has emerged on record if after release, he was
found involved in any such type of criminal activity.
5. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I
find no merit for enhancement of the sentence. The appeal lacks merits and
is dismissed.
6. Trial Court record be sent back forthwith with the copy of the
order.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 06, 2016 / tr
