Page 1 of 5

Crl.A.No.204/2011

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment delivered on: September 23, 2011

+

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.204/2011

MOHD ISLAM

....APPELLANT

Through: Mr. A.K. Tiwari, Advocate

Versus

STATE, NCT OF DELHI

.....RESPONDENT

Through: Ms. Fizani Husain, APP

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE

1. Whether Reporters of local papers

may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3. Whether the judgment should be

reported in Digest ?

AJIT BHARIHOKE, J.(ORAL)

1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated

15.11.2010 in NDPS case N No.18/2004 ID No.02403R0197862009 FIR

No.72/2009 P.S. Crime Branch under Section 21/29 NDPS Act and

consequent order on sentence dated 16.11.2010 whereby the appellant

has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 21(b) of

NDPS act and sentenced to undergo RI for the period of 02 year and 06

months and also to pay fine of `20,000/-, in default thereof to undergo

simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

2011:DHC:4923

Page 2 of 5

Crl.A.No.204/2011

2. The appellant was sent for trial on the allegations that on

21.05.2009 at 12:25 pm near Tivoli Garden, Chhatarpur, he was

apprehended and searched on the basis of secret information and he was

found in illegal possession of 260 gm of smack.

3. In order to bring home the guilt of the appellant, prosecution

examined 11 witnesses in all. Statement of the accused under Section

313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he denied the prosecution story. On

consideration of the evidence, learned Special Judge found the appellant

guilty of offence under Section 21(b) NDPS Act. He accordingly convicted

and sentenced him.

4. Learned Shri A.K. Tiwari, Advocate appearing for the appellant, at

the outset, on instructions from the appellant who is present in the court,

submits that the appellant admits his guilt on merits and he does not wish

to challenge his conviction under Section 21(b) of NDPS Act. Learned

counsel, however, has confined his submissions against the quantum of

sentence awarded to the appellant. It is submitted that the sentence

awarded to the appellant is too harsh. The learned trial court failed to

appreciate that the appellant is a young man and has a family to support.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant realises his

mistake and he deserves an opportunity to reform himself as a useful

member to the society. Thus, learned counsel has vehemently urged for

reduction of the sentence awarded to the appellant.

2011:DHC:4923

Page 3 of 5

Crl.A.No.204/2011

5. Learned APP, on the contrary, submits that considering the gravity

of the offence committed by the appellant, there is no reason for leniency

and reduction of sentence in this case.

6. I have considered the rival contentions. Sentencing of an

accused in a criminal matter is a serious exercise and the quantum

of sentence imposed commensurate with the gravity of the offence

committed by the accused and the circumstances under which the

offence was committed. While dealing with the issue of sentence for

the offences under Sections 3,4 & 6 of Terrorist and Disruptive

Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Supreme Court in the matter of

Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), (2001) 9 SCC 161,

wherein the Supreme Court, has inter alia, observed thus:

“7. ......Punishment in criminal cases is both punitive

and reformative. The purpose is that the person found

guilty of committing the offence is made to realise his

fault and is deterred from repeating such acts in future.

The reformative aspect is meant to enable the person

concerned to relent and repent for his action and make

himself acceptable to the society as a useful social

being. In determining the question of proper punishment

in a criminal case, the court has to weigh the degree of

culpability of the accused