The discretion of trial courts in sentencing should only be interfered with on manifest inadequacy; this discretion encompasses proportionality to the crime committed.

JUDGMENT :

M. Zothankhuma, J.

1. Heard Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned DSGI, appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. B. Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The instant appeal under Section 21(1) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 read with Section 377, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is preferred challenging the Final Order dated 26.07.2023 passed by the learned Special Court, NIA, Assam at Guwahati in Special NIA Case no. 02/2022 on the point of sentence. The two respondents herein were accused persons, who were charge- sheeted in Special NIA Case no. 02/2022. Charges were framed against the two respondents as A-4 and A-5 by the learned Special Court under Section 120B, IPC and Section 38, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Before the learned Special Court, both the respondents by filing petitions, pleaded guilty to the charges and the learned Special Court after hearing the parties, has considered it appropriate to convict them and to pass sentences equal to the period of detention they have undergone as UTPs. The respondent no. 1 had spent about one year two months and twenty-four days and the respondent no. 2 had spent about one year three months and one day in incarceration on the date of the impugned Order dated 26.07.2023.

3. The appellant’s counsel submits that the learned Trial Court had sentenced the respondents to simple imprisonment for 6(six) months with a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default, simple imprisonment for 14 (fourteen) days under section 120B IPC and rigorous imprisonment for the period already undergone under section 38 of the UA(P) Act, 1967, which were to run concurrently. He submits that the period of detention spent as Under Trial Prisoners (UTP) could not be considered to be rigorous imprisonment. The period of imprisonment as a UTP not being rigorous in nature, the said sentence of rigorous imprisonment cannot be set off against his detention period as a UTP.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that when it is not denied by the respondents that they were members of a terrorist organization, the sentence imposed upon the respondents by the learned Trial Court was too lenient and inadequate. The learned Trial Court should have sentenced the respondents to a more severe sentence, to serve as a deterrent and an example to others, not to join a terrorist organization. He submits that as the respondents are members of a terrorist organization, the learned Special Court, NIA, should have considered the gravity and seriousness of the offence, by imposing a more severe sentence. He also submits that in the case of Surjit Singh Vs. Nahara Ram & Anr. reported in (2004) 6 SCC 513 , the Supreme Court had held that the protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law, which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentences. It further held that undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system and undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and justice. Thus it held that it was the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed.

5. He submits that in the present case, though no act has been done by the respondents, except for being a member of a terrorist organization, proper reasons should have been provided by the learned trial Court, before awarding such lenient sentences to the respondents. He submits that the decision of the Supreme Court in the above ca