Rauf Qureshi vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Mrs. S.R. Waghmare, J.

1.The appellant stands convicted for offence punishable u/s 21(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced to suffer 10 years R.I. and fine of Rs. One lac. in case of failure to pay the fine, the appellant was to undergo one year''s of R.I. The sole contention of the Counsel for the appellant is that the appellant has undergone more than 10 years of the jail sentence and in the light of the decision of Apex Court in the matter of Shanti Lal Vs. State of M.P., he be released for the period that he had already undergone after the sentence is reduced to 10 years which is the minimum sentence and in default the jail sentence be reduced from three years to six months.

The prayer to reduce the sentence has been vigorously opposed by Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Indeed this situation was taken into consideration by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision of Shantilal (supra) the accused had suffered a jail sentence of 10 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 1 lac. which was imposed with a stipulation that in default of depositing the fine, the accused shall undergo three years R.I. and the Apex Court had reduced the jail sentence of the defaulting clause from 3 years to 6 months RI.

On considering the above submissions, I find that singular question that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the sentence in default of fine can be reduced in terms of Shantilal (supra). I find that the case is fully covered by the above mentioned case and the ratio shall apply in full force in the present case also.

In this light, the appeal is partly allowed, conviction recorded and sentence imposed on the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years is confirmed and upheld. An order of payment of fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees one lac. only) is also upheld. However, the sentence in default of payment of fine that the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for six months.

Consequently, to this extent, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. If the appellant has undergone substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years for offence u/s 21(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act; as also imprisonment for six months as modified in default of payment of fine, the appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in any other offence. If the appellant has not completed the said period, he will be released only after completion of the period of custody indicated herein above. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed to the extent herein above indicated.