Delhi High Court
Amit @ Sanjay vs State on 5 April, 2022
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 05.04.2022
+ CRL.A. 759/2019
AMIT @ SANJAY ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. S.S. Ahluwalia and Mr.Mohit
Bagmal, Advocates.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State
along with SI Ishwar Singh, P.S.
Dwarka (South) in FIR No. 473/2015.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
% JUDGMENT
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J (ORAL)
1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.' in short) against the judgment and order
on sentence dated 19.09.2018 passed by Mr. Ajay Goel, Additional Sessions
Judge/Special Judge (NDPS), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in Sessions Case
No. 440396/2016 in FIR No. 473/2015 registered under Sections 392/397/34
of the Indian Penal Code, 1872 ('IPC' in short) at P.S. : Dwarka (South),
Delhi whereby, the appellant was convicted under Sections 392/34 IPC and
sentenced to undergo, the sentence already undergone along with fine of
Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) and in default of payment of
fine of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), the petitioner was
Signature Not Verified
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:08.04.2022
04:05:26
directed to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
2. The present appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant on the
point of sentence so as to waive-off the amount of fine of Rs.20,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Thousand only) imposed vide order on sentence dated
19.09.2018. It is prayed that appellant be released on imprisonment already
undergone. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the delay
in filing the present appeal has already been condoned vide order dated
06.08.2019 in CRL. M.A. No. 12884/2019.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant is from
poor strata of society and is unable to pay the fine amount of Rs.20,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Thousand only). The family of the appellant is stated to
consist of aged parents, who are surviving on old-age pension and it is
submitted that the appellant has no source of income. It is also submitted that
the appellant has already undergone sentence of about of 03 years, one
month and 14 days on the date when he was sentenced for the period already
undergone vide order on sentence dated 19.09.2018.
4. Learned APP for the State submits that the learned trial court has
already taken a lenient view and the appeal is not maintainable in view of
provisions of Section 375 of Cr.P.C.
5. I have given considered thought to the contentions raised. Section 375
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.') provides as under :
"375. No Appeal in certain cases when accused pleads
guilty.
Signature Not Verified
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:08.04.2022
04:05:26
Notwithstanding anything contained in section 374,
where an accused person has pleaded guilty and has
been convicted on such plea, there shall be no appeal.-
(a) if the conviction is by a High Court; or
(b) if the conviction is by a Court of Session,
Metropolitan Magistrate or Magistrate of the first or
second class, except as to the extent or legality of the
sentence."
6. On a plain reading of the Section 375 of Cr.P.C., it can be deciphered
that an exception is carved out under Section 375 (b) of Cr.P.C. regarding
the maintainability of appeal on the legality of the sentence imposed by trial
court.
7. In Palaniappa Gounder vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported as (1977) 2
SCC 634, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that a court must take into
account, the nature of crime, injury suffered, justness of the claim, the
capacity to pay and other relevant circumstances in fixing the amount of
fine/compensation.
8. In Karamjit Singh vs. State reported as (2001) 9 SCC 161, it has been
observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that punishment in criminal cases is
both punitive and reformative. The purpose is that the person found guilty of
committing the offence is made to realize his fault and is deterred from
repeating such acts in future. The reformative aspect is meant to enable the
person concerned to relent and repent for his action and make himself
Signature Not Verified
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:08.04.2022
04:05:26
acceptable to the society as a useful social being.
9. Considering the fact that the appellant is from poor strata of the
society and is unable to pay the fine of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty
Thousand only), I am of the considered opinion that the sentence of payment
of fine needs to be reconsidered. In the facts and circumstances of the case,
the sentence imposed by the learned trial court is modified and the appellant
is directed to be released, on the period already undergone as directed by the
learned trial court and on payment of fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred
only); in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one
day.
10. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
11. A copy of this order be forwarded to learned trial court and the Jail
Superintendent for information and compliance.
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
(JUDGE)
APRIL 05, 2022
j
Signature Not Verified
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:08.04.2022
04:05:26
