Full Text
$-8 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.A. 263/2013
UCHE RUFUS @ TAJ Appellant
Through Ms. Sahila Lamba, Adv.
Through Mr. Sushil Kaushik, Adv.
15.04.2013 Crl.M.A. No. 2261/2013 By this application moved under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act, .1^63 the appellant seeks condonation of delay in filing the pre':^nt appeal.
Mr. Sushil Kaushik, Advocate enters appearance on behalf of therespondent. Reasons given by the appellant in the present application for seeking condonation of delay in filing the present
Crl.A. No. 263/2013 Page 1 of7 2013:DHC:8411 application are that the appellant belongs to apoor family, there is no one outside for his pairvi, he is a foreign national and nobody has come to see him in thejail since hisfirst day ofjudicial custody.
For the reasons stated in the present application, the delay of about twoyears and 3 months in filing thepresent appeal is condoned.
The application stands disposed of
By way of the present appeal filed by the appellant under
Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. the appellantseeks to challenge the
ORDER
Counsel appearing for the respondent has drawn attention of this Court to the prayer para of the present appeal to submit that the appellant in the present appeal has only challenged the order of sentence and not the order of conviction dated 21.7.2010. Contention raised by counsel' forthe respondent is that the appellant inthe present case, has been sentenced for committing offences punishable under
Section21 (c) and 29 read with Section21 (c) NDPS Act respectively
Crl.A.No. 263/2013 Page2 of 7 and the minimum prescribed sentence of the said office is 10 years
'' I with fine of Rs. 1 lakh. Counsel thus submits that as per the settled legal position the minimum sentence as statutorily prescribed cannot be reduced by this Court and therefore, the present appeal filed by the appellant seeking reduction of the said sentence does not sustain in the eyes of law.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and counsel for the respondent.
For better appreciation of the issue in hand let us first refer
Section 21 (c) and Section 29 of the NDPS Act which are reproduced as under
"21(c) Where the contravention involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall no be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees;"
"29 Punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy (1) whoever abets, or is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable under this Chapter, shall, whether such offence be or be not committed in consequence of such abetment or in pursuance of such criminal conspiracy, and notwithstanding anything
Crl.A. No. 263/2013 Page 3 of? contained in section 116 of the Indian Penal Code
(45 of 186), be punishable with the punishment providedfor the offence.
(2) A person abets, or is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit, an offence', within the meaning ofthis section, who, in India abets or is a party to the criminal conspiracy to the commission of any act in a place without and beyond India which- (a) would constitute an offence ifcommitted within India; or (b) under the laws of such place, is an offence. relating to narcotic drugs or psychotropic. substances having all the legal conditions required to constitute it such an offence the same as or analogous to the legal conditions required to constitute it an offence punishable under this Chapter, ifcommitted within India. " On reading of both the provisions, it is clear that a minimum sentence is provided for the aforesaid offences.Vide judgment dated 21.7.2010 the present appellant along with Santoldi Singh were convicted for committing an offence punishable under Section 21 (c) and 29 read with Section 21 (c) NDPS Act for acquiring, possessing and trafficking contraband i.e. heroin. Vide order dated 23.7.2010 passed by Special Judge NDPS, New Delhi the present appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years CrLA. No. 263/2013:.. plus to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 21(c) NDPS Act. The appellant has also bee;'! sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years plus to pay fine of Rs. 1 lakh and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 29 r/w 21 (c) NDPS Act. It was also ^ directed that both the said sentences shall run concurrently. Thus, the appellant has been awarded minimum sentence and the minimum amount of fine as laid down under Section 21(c) and Section 29 r/w 21,(c) NDPS. Protection of society- and deterring the criminal is the avoWed object of law and that can be achieved by imposing an apposite sentence. Minimum sentences are prescribed by the legislature agairist ^ grave offences which affect the society at large. Such minimum y sentences as prescribed against serious offences under the Statute must not be reduced by the Court keeping in mind the intendment of the legislature and the object that it sought to achieve while drafting sucli legislation. The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Crl.A. No. 263/2013 Page 5 of? 1985 views drug offences very seriously and prescribes unbendable penalties. For offences involving commercial quantities of drugs, a minimum penalty of ten years rigorous imprisonment is prescribed, which may extend to twenty years. Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court 'mNarendra Champak lal Trivediv. State of Gujarat, (2012) 7 SCC 80, which dealt with the plea on quantum of sentence raised by the offender for awarding a sentence lesser than the minimum prescribed sentence under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which is also a social legislation involving the interest of our country Hke NDPS Act, it was held that where the minimum sentence is provided, it is not appropriate to reduce the sentence on the ground of any mitigating factor as that would tantamount to supplanting the statutory mandate and further it would amount to - i ignoring the substantive statutory provision that prescribes minimum sentence for a criminal act. Thus, the order of sentence dated 23.7.2010 awarding the mi;-:imum sentence and the minimum amount of fine as laid down under Section 21(c) and Section29 r/w 21 (c) NDPS does not call for Crl.A. No. 263/2013 Page 6 of[7] ^ any interference in the lightof the above discussion. The appellant herein has not challenged the order of conviction, therefore, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
APRIL 15,2013 -rkr CrI.A.No. 263/2013 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J