Delhi High Court
Rajiv Sapra & Anr. vs State, N.C.T. Of Delhi on 22 August, 2017
$~R-1 to R-3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: August 22, 2017
+ CRL.A. 577/2000
RAJIV SAPRA & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr.N.Hariharan, Senior Advocate
instructed by Mr.Vaibhav Sharma,
Mr.Varun Deswal, Mr.Siddharth
Singh Yadav, Mr.Aditya Vaibhav
Singh, Ms.Mallika Chadha and
Mr.Prateek Bhalla, Advocates for
appellant No.1 Rajiv Sapra.
Ms.Vaishali Soni, Advocate for
appellant No.2 Satpal Sethi.
versus
STATE, N.C.T. OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP for the State.
AND
+ CRL.A. 589/2000
NARESH BHARDWAJ ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.N.Hariharan, Senior Advocate
instructed by Mr.Vaibhav Sharma,
Mr.Varun Deswal, Mr.Siddharth
Singh Yadav, Mr.Aditya Vaibhav
CRL.A. Nos.577, 589 & 601 of 2000 Page 1 of 8
Singh, Ms.Mallika Chadha and
Mr.PRateek Bhalla, Advocates.
versus
STATE, N.C.T. OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP for the State.
AND
+ CRL.A. 601/2000
AMRISH BHATNAGAR ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.R.M.Tufail, Advocate with
Mr.Farooq Chaudhary and
Ms.Meenakshi Joshi, Advocates.
versus
STATE, N.C.T. OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Kewal Singh Ahuja, APP for the
State.
PRATIBHA RANI, J. (Oral)
1. These three appeals have been preferred by the appellants
namely Rajiv Sapra, Satpal Sethi, Naresh Bhardwaj and Amrish
Bhatnagar assailing the judgment dated 5th August, 2000 and order on
sentence dated 9th August, 2000 whereby they have been convicted for
committing the offence punishable under Sections 304(II)/308/120-B
IPC and sentenced as under:-
Appellants Satpal Sethi, Naresh Bhardwaj & Amrish Bhatnagar
(1) U/S 120-B IPC : to undergo RI for six months.
(2) U/S 308 IPC : to undergo RI for five years
with fine of ₹1000/- each and in
default of payment of fine, to
undergo RI for six months.
(3) U/S 304 (II) IPC : to undergo RI for seven years
with fine of ₹2000/- each and in
default of payment of fine, to
undergo RI for one year.
Appellant Rajiv Sapra
(1) U/S 120-B IPC : to undergo RI for six months.
(2) U/S 308 IPC : to undergo RI for five years
with fine of ₹1000/- each and in
default of payment of fine, to
undergo RI for six months.
(3) U/S 304 (II) IPC : to undergo RI for five years
with fine of ₹1500/- each and in
default of payment of fine, to
undergo RI for nine months.
2. During the course of hearing, Mr.N.Hariharan, learned Senior
Advocate for appellants Rajiv Sapra and Naresh Bhardwaj, Mr.Jayant
K.Sud, learned Senior Advocate for appellant Satpal Sethi and
Mr.R.M.Tufail, learned counsel for the appellant Amrish Bhatnagar,
on instructions, submit that all the four appellants are not challenging
their conviction for committing the offence punishable under Section
304(II)/308/120-B IPC and would like to confine their submissions on
the quantum of sentence only.
3. On behalf of appellants, it is submitted that this is the infamous
SURA case wherein on the eve of Diwali i.e. on 5th Novermber, 1991,
many persons who consumed 'KARPOOR ASHAV' had either lost
their vision or died for which in all 254 FIRs were registered and
equal number of chargesheets were filed. A Commission headed by
Justice Jagdish Chandra was constituted and the appellants continued
appearing before the Commission. The report was submitted by the
Commission after about eight months. Thereafter a Special Court was
created to try these cases and FIR No.394/1991, PS Ashok Vihar was
ordered to be treated as the main case. The trial before the Special
Court continued on day to day basis for about seven years. Thousands
of witnesses were examined and throughout till the judgment was
pronounced on 5th August, 2000, all the appellants had been regularly
appearing before the learned Trial Court. All the appellants had
remained in custody for a period ranging from three years to four
years. This case had ruined all the appellants not only on social front
but also economically and they had not been able to even take care of
their respective families because of their long incarceration and
regular appearance before the Court specially constituted to try this
case where trial has been conducted on day to day basis.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that in all 44
accused persons were sent to face trial. Out of 44 accused persons, 39
accused persons, who were the shopkeepers and sold the SURA to the
victims, were charged for committing the offence punishable under
Section 61(1)(14) of Punjab Excise Act. Out of the 39 accused persons
(shopkeepers), 38 accused persons pleaded guilty at the initial stage of
trial and were dealt with leniently. One shopkeeper i.e. accused Ajay
Gupta was convicted under Section 61(1)(14) of Punjab Excise Act
and sentenced to undergo RI for four months and to pay a fine of
₹1000/-.
5. Out of the remaining five accused persons, accused Ajay Kumar
Sharma, who was alleged to be Manager of M/s Karnal Pharmacy was
acquitted by the learned Trial Court. The appeal bearing Crl.A.
No.103/2005 preferred by the State challenging the acquittal of
accused Ajay Kumar Sharma has been dismissed by this Court vide
order dated 21st August, 2017.
6. Now these appeals pertain to the four appellants herein, who are
stated to be partners of M/s.Karnal Pharmacy and have been convicted
and sentenced as stated above. It has also been submitted that
although three appellants namely Naresh Bhardwaj, Rajiv Sapra and
Satpal Sethi ceased to be partners of the firm w.e.f. January, 1990 and
at the time of this tragedy only one partner namely Amrish Bhatnagar
was the sole proprietor but since there is no dissolution deed of the
partnership concern, all the four appellants have preferred not to
challenge their conviction but to pray for a lenient view on the
quantum of sentence for the following reasons:-
(i) They faced agony of trial for nine years and also remained in
custody for a long time ranging from 3 years to 4 years without
calculating remission.
(ii) These appeals are also pending since 2000 and throughout this
period of about 17 years or prior thereto, they have never been
involved in any other case.
7. In addition to above submissions, the appellants have filed their
written submissions highlighting their peculiar circumstances under
which they have prayed that they may not be sent to jail to undergo the
unexpired portion of sentence.
8. Taking into consideration that the incident took place on 5th /6th
November, 1991 and thereafter they have not only remained in
incarceration for a period ranging from three years to four years but
even the appeals are pending since 2000, in view of the facts and
circumstances explained by the appellants, it would serve the ends of
justice if the substantive sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced
to the period already undergone by them in this case. In view of the
peculiar circumstances, as narrated by the appellants in their separate
submissions, sending them to Jail at this age and juncture would have
the effect of subjecting them to unending misery.
9. While upholding the conviction of the appellants under Sections
304(II)/308/120-B IPC, the substantive sentence awarded to the
appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them in this
case. However, in addition to the fine imposed on the appellants by
the learned Trial Court, which they have already paid, all the four
appellants are further directed to deposit a fine of Rs.7 lacs each (total
₹28 lacs) with the Registrar General of this Court. In default of
payment of fine, the appellants shall undergo SI for two years.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that currently
the financial condition of all the four convicts is in bad shape and
some time may be given to them to arrange for the fine amount. It has
also been submitted that they have never abused their liberty and had
been appearing on each and every date of hearing before this Court.
Mr.N.Hariharan, Senior Advocate and Mr.R.M.Tufail, Advocate have
submitted they had been associated with this case since inception i.e.
during trial as well as during hearing of these appeals and that today
the appellants can deposit only part of the fine amount i.e ₹1 lac each
and for the remaining fine amount of ₹6 lacs each (total ₹24 lacs), two
months time may be given.
11. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the
appellants, the appellants are directed to deposit the fine amount of
₹1 lac each (total ₹ 4 lacs) today with the Registrar General of this
Court.
12. The remaining fine amount of ₹6 lacs each (total ₹24 lacs) shall
be deposited with the Registrar General of this Court within two
months from the date of this order subject their each furnishing an
undertaking that they shall deposit the fine within two months from
the date of this order and subject to their furnishing PB/SB each in the
sum of ₹50,000/- each to the satisfaction of Registrar (Appellate).
13. In the circumstances, the sentence to be undergone by the
appellant in default of payment of fine is deferred for a period of two
months. It is made clear to all the appellants that if they fail to deposit
the fine amount within two months as directed, they shall surrender
before the Jail Superintendent to undergo the sentence in default of
payment of fine.
14. All the four appeals are allowed only to the extent of
modification of order on sentence to the above extent.
15. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail
Superintendent for information.
16. Registry is directed to send back the LCR alongwith copy of
this order after the above order is complied with by the appellants.
17. As prayed, copy of the order be given dasti to the parties under
the signature of Court Master.
PRATIBHA RANI
(JUDGE)
AUGUST 22, 2017
'st'
