Dilip Kumar Soni vs State of U.P.

B.A. Zaidi, J.—Accused-Appellant Dilip Kumar Soni has been convicted u/s 8/20(b) (ii)-b Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'') in Special Sessions Trial No. 21/2003 by Additional Sessions Judge, Mahrajganj and sentenced to five year R.I. and a fine of Rs. 50,000 in default, further imprisonment for six months by judgment dated 7.7.2005.

He has, therefore, come in appeal here.

The Appellant was under detention during the trial.

Heard Sri Sanjay Shukla, advocate, amicus curie for the Appellant and Sri Mohammad Israil Siddiqui, Addl. Government Advocate for the State.

The counsel has declined to argue the case on merits and has confined his argument to the quantum of punishment.

The sentence provided under the ''Act'' is 6 months and fine, if charas recovered is up to 100 gramme the recovery exceeded the small quantity prescribed under the ''Act'' only to 150 gramme, which brought about the difference between 6 months and 5 years because the accused was sentenced to 5 years R.I.

The Judge should have realised that the ''Act'' is Lex-Tallionis hard and severe and the approach should, therefore, be humanizing and humanitarian for exceeding the quantity by 150 gramme, the Judge would have added two times more to the maximum prescribed sentence for the small quantity but the Judge did not pause to ponder and hesitate and slapped the sentence of 5 years.

Judges sitting in Court to the Dias do not generally feel the pinch what mental trauma confinement can cause and no specific criteria or yardstick is provided for their guidance. There are legal systems which have taken away the sentencing power of Judges and assigned it to sentencing Boards, which look to all the aspects and all the surrounding features in detail and then decide the quantum of sentence and which is, therefore, likely to be so arbitrary.

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, it seems desirable to reduce the sentence of the accused to 18 months and since he has already undergone 10 days than 5 years, he has covered the period of confinement in default of payment of fine. He, therefore, becomes entitled to release immediately.

Ordered accordingly.