9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iven in Gujarat case as well as Bombay case would run concurrently - Insofar as fine of ₹ 1 lakh which is imposed by the Trial Court in Gujarat case is concerned, the same would remain - However, as far as fine of ₹ 3 lakhs in Bombay case is concerned, the same is reduced to ₹ 2 Lakhs. Since the amount of fine is to be remitted to Narcotic Control Bureau, the appellant is permitted to pay the total fine of ₹ 3 lakhs (Rs.1 lakh + ₹ 2 lakhs) with the Narcotic Control Bureau, Special Judge, Bombay. Appeal disposed off. - Criminal Appeal No. (S). 1256/2009, Criminal Appeal No. 1322/2014 - - - Dated:- 1-2-2017 - A. K. Sikri And R. K. Agrawal, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Anand Grover, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shree Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that against the sentence awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge even the State had preferred an appeal in the High Court for enhancement of the sentence which had also been dismissed by the High Court. We may also record at the outset that the main reason which has prevailed with the courts below is the confessional statement of the appellant recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act apart from relying upon certain other material. Mr. Anand Grover, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, has made earnest endeavour to challenge the verdict of the courts below on various grounds. He submitted that for various reasons the statement of the appellant under Section 67 of the NDPS Act could not be used. According to him ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said sentence of ten years. Notwithstanding the same the main reason for arguing this appeal by Mr. Grover was that it has a bearing on the second case which has originated from Bombay High Court and we shall advert thereto at this juncture. As far as the other appeal is concerned, the appellant was tried by the Special Judge for NDPS, Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay in Special Case No. 60 of 2002. This trial culminated into conviction vide judgment dated 06.02.2008 by said court whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence under Sections 8(c), 20(b) (ii) read with Section 31A of the NDPS Act and was sentenced to death. The death reference has been sent for confirmation before the High Court. The appellant also filed an a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to commit, or abetment of, or criminal conspiracy to commit, an offence punishable under this Act with the same amount of punishment shall be punished for the second and every subsequent offence with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to one and one-half times of the maximum term of imprisonment and also be liable to fine which shall extend to one and one-half times of the maximum amount of fine (2) Where the person referred to in sub-section (1) is liable to be punished with a minimum term of imprisonment and to a minimum amount of fine, the minimum punishment for such person shall be one and one-half times of the minimum term of imprisonment and one and one-half times of the minimum amount of fine: Provided that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was not a case where the appellant should have been given maximum punishment and thereafter multiplier of one and one-half times applied. Since the minimum term of imprisonment as prescribed in sub-section (2) of Section 31 is ten years, on that reckoning, when it is enhanced by one and one-half times, the minimum sentence comes to 15 years. However, in the facts of this case, we are of the opinion that the sentence should be more than minimum and ends of justice would be sub-served if the appellant is given the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 16 years. While doing so we also had in mind that the appellant is of 65 years of age and suffering from various ailments. We also make it clear that sentence given in Gujarat case as well as B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
