Delhi High Court
Teo Kok Siong vs The Narcotics Control Bureau on 10 January, 2020
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on : 7th January, 2019
Date of Decision: 10th January, 2020
+ CRL.A.516/2013 & CRL.M(B) 762/2013
TEO KOK SIONG ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Joginder Tuli & Ms.
Joshini Tuli, Advocates
versus
THE NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Subhash Bansal, Standing
Counsel
+ CRL.A.837/2013, CRL.M(B) 1357/2013 &
CRL.M.A.9946/2013
NIRMALA KUMARI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Joginder Tuli & Ms.
Joshini Tuli, Advocates
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Subhash Bansal, Standing
Counsel
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J.
1. The present appeals were filed by the appellants against the
judgment dated 6.10.2012 and subsequent order on sentence dated
11.10.2012 passed by the Special judge, NDPS, Patiala House Court,
New Delhi wherein the appellants were convicted under Section
20(b)(ii)(c) read with Section 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('NDPS Act') and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a
fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each and in default thereof to undergo simple
imprisonment for 6 months.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that she does not,
as per instructions, press the appeal of the appellants on merits.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that
appellants have already undergone almost 9 years and 9 months of
their sentence as on date.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants have also relied upon the
following judgments:
(i) Shahejadkhan Mahebubkhan Pathan v. State of Gujarat
2012 10 Scale 21
(ii) Unice Ada Jemor v. Customs 2014(9) RCR (Cri) 819
(iii) Raj Kumar v. State 2013 LawSuit (del) 838
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also
perused the Trial Court record.
6. The appellants have not opted to challenge the findings of the
learned Trial Court on conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) read with
Section 29 of the NDPS Act. Hence, the judgment on conviction of the
Trial Court dated 6/10/2012 is affirmed.
7. As regards the order on quantum of sentence, the appellants
were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10
years for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) read with
Section 29 of the NDPS Act and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each
and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months
vide order dated 11.10.2012. The appellants have almost served the
substantial sentence as stated hereinabove. The conduct of the
appellants has been reported to be satisfactory as per the nominal roll
received from the jail authorities. The appellants have not been
previously convicted nor are they involved in any other criminal case.
8. Hence, taking into consideration, Section 30 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the judgments passed in the matters of
Shahejadkhan Mahebubkhan Pathan v. State of Gujarat(supra),
Unice Ada Jemor v. Customs(supra) and Raj Kumar v. State(supra),
the default sentence of the appellants is reduced from six months to
two months. It is ordered that the appellants shall pay a fine of Rs.1
lac each and in default of payment of fine, the appellants shall have to
further undergo simple imprisonment for two months.
9. The appeals filed by the appellants are disposed of in the above
terms. Pending applications are also disposed of.
10. Copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent, Tihar Jail who
shall also supply a copy of the same to the appellants. Copy of the
order along with the Trial Court record be sent back immediately.
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J
JANUARY 10, 2020/rk
