CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Siya Ram Mehto vs State (Gnct) of Delhi

Delhi High Court · Decided on 30 November 2011 · Citation: (2011) 11 DEL CK 0401

HON’BLE JUDGES
Suresh Kait, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS) — Section 20, 61
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal A. 702 of 2009
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

18 paragraphs · 371 words

Suresh Kait, J.

Crl. M.A. 18657/2011 in CRL. A. 1492/2011

1.

Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. Criminal M.A. stands disposed of.

Crl. M.A. 18656/2011 in CRL. A. 1492/2011

2.

Delay condoned.

Crl. A.702/2009 & CRL. A.1492/2011

3.

Notice issued.

4.

Ld. APP accepts notice on behalf of the State.

5.

At the request of ld. Counsel for parties, these two appeals are taken for final disposal as both are arising out of the same judgment.

6.

Ms. Nandita Rao, Adv. has been appointed as Amicus Curiae in the instant Appeals.

7.

She submits that vide judgment dated 20.07.2006, both the appellants were found guilty for the offences u/s 20(b)(ii)(C)/61/85 of NDPS Act and vide order on sentence dated 25.07.2006, both the appellants were sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 10 years with a fine of Rs.1 Lac each.

8.

Ms. Nandita Rao, ld. Amicus Curiae has filed the connected Appeal vide no. 1492/2011, which has taken up on adjudication today itself.

9.

Ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants do not dispute to the judgment dated 20.07.2006. However, they are seeking to modify the order on sentence dated 25.07.2006, whereby both the appellants were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 10 years along with a fine of Rs.1 Lac each.

10.

She further clarified that she does not dispute even the sentence of 10 years. However, as the appellants belong to lower strata of the society, therefore, she has prayed to modify the punishment awarded in default of payment of fine of Rs.1 Lac. She further submits that both the appellants have already undergone more than 8 years out of the total sentence awarded to them. She further relied upon decision rendered by this Court on 03.08.2010 in Crl.Appeal No. 104/2003 titled as Raj Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi

11.

Keeping in view the poor financial condition of the appellants, I modify the order on sentence dated 25.07.2006 and reduce the RI from one year to 15 days in default of payment of fine of Rs.1 Lac.

12.

Copy of this order be sent to Jail Superintendent for information and compliance.

13.

Accordingly, Crl.A. 702/2009 and Crl.A1492/2011 are partially allowed.

14.

Dasti.