Full Judgement
Delhi High Court
Laishram Ranjit Singh Meitei @ Apik @ ... vs Nia on 5 March, 2024
Author: Suresh Kumar Kait
Bench: Suresh Kumar Kait
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 05th March, 2024
+ CRL.A. 307/2023 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 483/2023
LAISHRAM RANJIT SINGH MEITEI @ APIK @ MANAO @
LOYA @ TAMNGANBA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Guarav Sharma, Advocate.
versus
NIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Gautam Narayan, SSP with Ms.
Asmita Sigh, Ms. Zeenat Malik, PP
and Mr. Prabhat Baspow, SP for NIA.
Mr. Shashank Ahuja, PP and Mr. R P
Pandey, DSP for NIA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. The appellant has filed present appeal under Section 375 (b) Cr.P.C.
2. The appellant and three others were arrested and charge-sheeted. The charges against all of them were ascertained vide order dated 16.11.2021. As far as, appellant is concerned, he was directed to be charged under Section 384 r/w 120B IPC, 385 r/w 120 IPC, 17, 18 & 20 the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967("UAPA").
3. The appellant and his co-accused had shown their inclination to plead guilty to such charges. They were duly made aware about the maximum punishment which could be inflicted upon them for the offences for which they were proposed to be charged with. They were also given time to consult
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.A. 307/2023 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:07.03.2024 12:15:12 their counsel and were given time for reflection. They were, again, produced before the learned Trial Court, but they remained adamant in pleading guilty.
4. We have seen the impugned order which clearly indicates that appellant was granted sufficient time to consider his plea of guilt and after recording satisfaction that the accused had voluntarily and after due legal consultation and after being made aware about the consequences thereof, the plea of guilt was accepted and the accused was accordingly convicted.
5. The appellant has been given following sentence:-
"U/s 384 r/w 120 B IPC i. The convict is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 year, ii. A fine of Rs. 2,000/- is also imposed upon the convict. In default of payment of fine, the convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. U/s 385 r/w 120 B IPC i. The convict is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 year, ii. A fine of Rs. 2,000/- is also imposed upon the convict. In default of payment of fine, the convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. U/s 17 UAPA i. The convict is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 07 years, ii. A fine of Rs. 10,000/- is also imposed upon the convict. In default of payment of fine, the convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. U/s 18 UAPA.
i. The convict is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 05 years, ii. A fine of Rs. 5,000/- is also imposed upon the convict. In default of payment of fine, the convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. U/s 20 UAPA.
i. The convict is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 05 years, ii. A fine of Rs. 5,000/- is also imposed upon the convict. In default of payment of fine, the convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months."
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.A. 307/2023 2 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:07.03.2024 12:15:12
6. Learned counsel for the appellant, very fairly, contends that the present appeal is restricted to the quantum of sentence and the appellant would be satisfied, if some compassion is shown to him with respect to in-default sentence only.
7. It is informed by learned SPP for NIA that the appellant has already undergone 6 ½ years of substantive sentence and the learned Trial Court has already taken a lenient view.
8. Admittedly, the appellant belongs to a poor strata and his parents are also indisposed. He has two daughters and he happens to be a sole bread-earner of his family. We also cannot be unmindful of the fact that he pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity.
9. Moreover, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has merely prayed that the period of in-default sentence may be reduced. As per the instructions, he does not seek any further leniency with respect to substantive sentence.
10. Nothing has been placed before us which may indicate that the conduct of the appellant during the period he remained behind the bars, was unsatisfactory or with any kind of blemish.
11. In view of totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and also keeping in mind, the sentence provided for offences for which the convict has been sentenced, we allow the appeal to the extent that there would not be any fine for offences under Sections 384 r/w 120B IPC and 385 r/w 120 IPC. However, for offences under Sections 17, 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967("UAPA") though, the substantive sentence and fine amount would remain the same, the in-default sentence period shall stand reduced to 15 days each for each said offence. The rest of the sentence
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.A. 307/2023 3 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:07.03.2024 12:15:12 would remain the same
12. The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. A copy of this judgment be sent to Jail Superintendent for information and due compliance with the direction that the appellant be released from the jail, after serving the aforesaid period of sentence and in-default sentence, if not required in any other case.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE MARCH 05, 2024/sw
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.A. 307/2023 4 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:07.03.2024 12:15:12
