2016 (10) TMI 463 - HC - Indian Laws

Guilty for committing offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) read with Section 29 NDPS Act - Held that - Since the appellant has opted to accept the findings of the Trial Court on conviction and there is ample evidence to prove the allegations, his conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) read with Section 29 NDPS Act is affirmed. Regarding Sentence Order, it transpires that he has already undergone almost the entire substantive sentence awarded to him. Nominal Roll dated 04.03.2015 reveals that he has remained in custody for six years, seven months and twenty-six days as on 03.03.2015. He is not involved in any other criminal case and is not a previous convict; his overall jail conduct is satisfactory. Substantive sentence i.e. RI for ten years each under both the heads can t be modified or altered as it is the minimum sentence prescribed under the Act.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to legality and correctness of judgment dated 17.08.2013 convicting the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) and Section 29 NDPS Act, Request for modification of sentence due to time served, Comparison with a previous case for sentence reduction, Modification of default sentence for non-payment of fine.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an appeal challenging the judgment convicting him under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) and Section 29 NDPS Act. The prosecution's case involved information about the illicit business of charas by the appellant and his associates. The raiding teams recovered substantial amounts of hashish from the appellant's car and godown, leading to his conviction.

2. Co-accused Rakesh Kumar was acquitted of the charges, highlighting the differing outcomes in the case. During the appeal, the appellant's counsel accepted the conviction but sought modification of the sentence due to time already served by the appellant in custody.

3. The court affirmed the appellant's conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) and Section 29 NDPS Act, given the ample evidence supporting the allegations. The appellant's substantial time served in custody was considered, leading to a discussion on modifying the sentence order.

4. Referring to a previous case where the Supreme Court reduced a sentence due to time served, the court discussed the possibility of modifying the default sentence for non-payment of the fine. Citing Section 30 of Cr.P.C., the court decided to modify the default sentence for non-payment of the total fine to a shorter period.

5. Ultimately, the appeal was disposed of with the conviction affirmed, and the sentence order modified to reduce the default sentence for non-payment of the fine. The court directed the trial court record to be sent back and informed the Superintendent Jail about the decision.