1

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL  NO.  2151  OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 7851 OF 2017]

PRADEEP BACHHAR                                Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS

THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH                      Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant is convicted under Section 20(b) (ii)(C)  of  The  Narcotic  Drugs  and  Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, “the NDPS Act”) and sentenced  to  undergo  rigorous  imprisonment  for  15 years and a fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- with a default sentence of three years.

3. The High Court reduced the sentence from 15 years to  12  years.   The  fine  of  Rs.  1,50,000/-  was retained, but the default sentence was reduced to two years.

4. When the matter came up before this Court, on 09.10.2017,  notice  was  issued  on  the  quantum  of sentence.

2

5. A  similar  situation  came  up  for  consideration before this Court in  Shahejadkhan Mahebubkhan Pathan Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2013) 1 SCC 570, whereby  having  regard  to  the  financial  and  other social conditions of the convicted person, this Court reduced the substantial sentence to 10 years and the default  sentence  to  six  months.   The  relevant considerations are available at paragraphs 15 and 16 of the Judgment, which read as follows :-

“15. It  is  clear  that  clause  (b)  of sub-section 1 of Section 30 of the Code authorises  the  court  to  award imprisonment  in  default  of  fine  up  to one-fourth of the term of imprisonment which the court is competent to inflict as punishment for the offence.  However, considering  the  circumstances  placed before  us  on  behalf  of  the appellant-accused viz. they are very poor and have to maintain their family, it was their first offence and if they fail to pay the amount of fine as per the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, they have to remain in jail for a period of 3 years  in  addition  to  the  period  of substantive  sentene  because  of  their inability to pay the fine, we are of the view  that  serious  prejudice  will  be caused not only to them but also to their family members who are innocent.  We are, therefore,  of  the  view  that  ends  of justice would be met if we order that in

3

default of payment of fine of Rs. 1.5 lakhs, the appellants shall undergo RI for  6  months  instead  of  3  years  as ordered by the Additional Sessions Judge and confirmed by the High Court.   

16. For  the  reasons  stated  above, both the appeals are partly allowed.  The conviction  recorded  is  confirmed  and sentence imposed upon the appellants to undergo RI for 15 years is modified to 10 years.  The order of payment of fine of Rs. 1.5 lakhs each is also upheld but the order that in default of payment of fine, the  appellants  shall  undergo  RI  for  3 years  is  reduced  to  RI  for  6  months. Since the appellants have already served nearly 12 years in jail, we are of the view that as per the modified period of sentence in respect of default in payment of fine, there is no need for them to continue in prison.  The appellants shall be set at liberty forthwith unless they are required in any other offence.  It is further made clear that for any reasons, if the appellants have not completed the modified period of sentence, they will be released  after  the  period  indicated hereinabove is over.”    

6. Having heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the State, on facts, we do not find any reason to take a different view.  Accordingly, the appeal is

4

allowed.  The substantial sentence of the appellant is reduced to 10 years and the sentence in default on payment of fine is reduced to six months.

.......................J.               [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]  

.......................J.               [ AMITAVA ROY ]  

New Delhi; December 11, 2017.

5

ITEM NO.45               COURT NO.5               SECTION II-C                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)  No(s).7851 of 2017 PRADEEP BACHHAR                                    Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH                          Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R.  and IA No.98898/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.98900/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING  O.T.  and  IA  No.122751/2017-PERMISSION  TO  FILE  ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS and IA No.122752/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 11-12-2017 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM :  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY For Appellant(s) Mr. A. T. M. Rangaramanujam, Sr. Adv.                       Mr. Naresh Kumar, AOR                     For Respondent(s) Mr. Atul Jha, Adv.  

Mr. Sandeep Jha, Adv.  Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Adv.  

                        UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following                              O R D E R

Leave granted.  The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed non-reportable

Judgment.   Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA)                              (RENU DIWAN)    COURT MASTER                                ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file)