Man Singh vs State of Goa

A.P. Lavande, J

Heard Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor for the Respondent.

Since the Appellant is in jail and this appeal is filed challenging only the sentences imposed on the Appellant that too in default, the appeal is taken up for final hearing out of turn.

The Appellant was tried by N.D.P.S. Court at Mapusa in Special Criminal Case No. 16/2001 for the offences punishable u/s 20(b)(ii) and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (''The Act'' for short). The Appellant has been convicted for the said offences by the judgment and order dated 12th June, 2003 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1 Lac and in default to undergo one year simple imprisonment for the offence punishable u/s 20(b)(ii) of The Act and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1 Lac and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable u/s 22 of The act. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. The Appellant was arrested on 24th December, 2000 and has been in custody/jail since then. There is no serious dispute that the Appellant has undergone substantive period of imprisonment imposed on him by the N.D.P.S. Court.

On behalf of the Appellant, the only ground urged in support of the appeal is that in default sentences imposed on the Appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii) and 22 of The Act are excessive; the Appellant is presently undergoing in default sentences and since the Appellant is coming from poor family, he is not in a position to pay the fine amount of Rs. 2 Lacs which has been imposed on the Appellant. Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant having undergone the substantive sentences imposed on him and the Appellant being unable to pay the fine amounts of Rs. 2 Lacs, in default sentences imposed on the Appellant be reduced since the Appellant is coming from poor family and is unable to pay the fine amounts. In support of his submissions, Mr. Usgaonkar placed reliance on the following judgments:

(i) Shanti Lal Vs. State of M.P., .

(ii) Unreported judgment of Delhi High Court dated 10th February, 2011 in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Delhi.

On behalf of the Respondent, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that he could not get any instructions as to whether the Appellant comes from poor family or not since the Appellant hails from Nepal.

I have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the record and the judgments relied upon.

In the case of Shanti Lal (supra), the Apex Court after considering the fact that the Appellant was poor and he was merely a carrier, reduced the in default sentence imposed on the Appellant for the offence punishable u/s 18 of The Act from three years rigorous imprisonment to six months rigorous imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court.

In the case of Ramesh Kumar (supra), the learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court placing reliance upon the judgment in the case of Shanti Lal (supra), reduced the sentence to six months instead one year.

In the case of Durand Didier Vs. Chief Secretary, Union Territory of Goa, . the Apex Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the Appellant, who was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for the offences punishable u/s 21, 20(b)(ii) and 18 of The Act and maintained the sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1 Lac, however, reduced in default sentence imposed by the Sessions Court and maintained by this Court from one year to six months. No doubt, the imposition of in default sentence is in the discretion of the trial Court. However, in the present case, the fact remains that the Appellant claims to be from the poor family which fact has not been specifically disputed by the Respondent-State. Moreover, perusal of the impugned judgment discloses that the Appellant/accused was represented by Advocate appointed under Legal Aid Scheme. Moreover, the Appellant has undergone substantive sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment. Therefore, having regard to the judgments referred to above relied upon by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and judgment in the case of Durand Didier (supra), I am of the considered opinion that this is a fit case in which in default sentences imposed on the Appellant for the offences punishable u/s 20(b)(ii) and 22 of The Act deserve to be reduced from one year simple imprisonment to six months'' simple imprisonment each. Accordingly, in default sentences imposed on the Appellant are reduced to six months simple imprisonment from one year simple imprisonment in respect of both the offences for which he has been convicted.

The appeal stands partly allowed in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.