Delhi High Court
State vs Mohd Zahid @ Langda on 12 May, 2017
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : MAY 12, 2017
+ CRL.A. 821/2014
STATE ..... Appellant
Through : Ms.Meenakshi Dahiya, APP.
versus
MOHD ZAHID @ LANGDA ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Ravi Tikania, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)
1. Present appeal has been filed by the State to challenge the order
dated 09.04.2014 of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Central) in Sessions
Case No. 40/13 arising out of FIR No. 88/13 at Police Station Chandni
Mahal whereby the respondent was awarded sentence for the period already
undergone by him in the case. The appeal is contested by the respondent.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
examined the file. By an order dated 9.4.2014, the respondent was
convicted under Section 21(b) of NDPS Act being in possession of 49 gms
of heroine. The respondent has not challenged the conviction.
3. The learned APP for the State urged that the offence committed
by the respondent is serious and grave in nature. He was found in
possession of intermediate quantity of heroine and the offence is punishable
upto Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years.
4. Sentence order dated 9.4.2014 reveals that the respondent was
aged around 45 years and had remained in custody from 8.6.2013 to
8.1.2014. He is not a previous convict. It further records that at the time of
award of the sentence, the respondent's wife and son were present in the
court. Shariq, respondent's son, submitted that he was assisting his father in
his work of packing. Respondent's wife informed that earlier her husband
had fallen in bad company but now he has improved a lot and that he be
given a change to reform. Similar prayer was made by the respondent
stating that earlier he was in bad company and had started consuming it.
After he was sent to jail, he stopped consuming it. The respondent has four
children. Taking into consideration all the mitigating circumstances and to
enable the respondent to reform, lenient view was taken and the respondent
was awarded punishment for the period already undergone by him in this
case. Apparently, the discretion in awarding sentence has been exercised by
the learned Trial Court after considering all the relevant mitigating and
extenuating circumstances. The respondent is not a king-pin. Nothing
incriminating material was recovered after his arrest at his residence or place
of work.
5. It is trite law that object of punishment to an accused is not
merely to punish the wrong doer but also to reform him and not to commit
such offence in future.
6. In the instant case, the Trial Court after considering the facts
and circumstances was of the view that there was possibility of the
respondent to reform. He has been supported by his family in this
endeavour.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no
merit in the present appeal. The appeal is dismissed.
8. Copy of the order be sent to the court concerned for
information.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
MAY 12, 2017
sa
