Delhi District Court
Sh. Pramod Mahadev Janvekar @ Pammo ... vs Cbi on 10 February, 2010
1 Crl.Appl.No. 08/2009
IN THE COURT OF MS. MADHU JAIN, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE03, NORTH, DELHI.
Crl.Appl.No. 08/2009
RC. SIB2004E0002
FIR No 604/02
PS: Hauz Khas
U/s 120B/258/259/260/34/468/471/472 IPC
Court Concerned/successor court:
Sh. Sanjay Bansal, ACMM, Delhi.
In the matter of:
Sh. Pramod Mahadev Janvekar @ Pammo Bhaiya
S/o Sh. Mahadev Janvekar
R/o 1464, Station Road,
Khanapur, Belgam, Karnataka.
Presently at Central Jail, Tihar.
....Appellant
Versus
CBI
E.O.U. (V)
th
5 & 6th Floor, Block No.3,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi03.
.....Respondent
O R D E R
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant 2 Crl.Appl.No. 08/2009 u/s 374 of Cr.P.C. seeking reduction of fine in RC.SIB2004E 0002 in FIR No. 604/02 Police Station Hauz Khas.
2. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that this is a case of the series of cases which arose out of the biggest scams known as Fake Stamp Paper Scam in the history of India. After receiving of secret information, a raid was conducted at the office of main accused Abdul Karim Telgi. The present case was registered in the year 2002 and coaccused namely Mansoor Ahmad, Mohsin Azimullah @ Suleman, Mohd. Asif @ Ashish Patel and Deepak Kudale were arrested on 05.10.2002 and their disclosure statement were recorded and further the other accused persons were arrested including the present appellant. The accused persons disclosed that they were working for Abdul Karim Telgi who was in Bangalore jail at that time. During the course of investigation, counterfeit government stamps scam burst out and accordingly from time to time various accused persons in the said 3 Crl.Appl.No. 08/2009 scam were arrested.
3. After filing of the charge sheet and after order on the charge, section 255 IPC was dropped and the case was remanded to the ld. ACMM Tis Hazari, Delhi. CBI filed the criminal revision against that order which was also dismissed. Subsequently on the point of charge, the appellant pleaded guilty and he has been convicted vide order dated 23.4.2009 and sentenced vide order dated 11.6.2009 and it is against this order of sentence, that appellant has filed the present appeal.
4. One of the grounds of the appeal is that appellant did not participate in actual commission of offence and he is in custody since his arrest. The trial court at Pune, Ahmedabad calculated the period of custody of the accused persons from the date of their first arrest of the FIR in which they were arrested whereas the trial court here has not done so. As a result of arrest and conviction of the appellant who was the sole bread earner and 4 Crl.Appl.No. 08/2009 was maintaining his whole family, now his whole family is on the verge of the starvation. The appellant has old aged parents and younger sister. It is therefore, prayed that sentence be reduced alongwith fine to the period already undergone by the appellant.
5. After filing of the appeal, notice was given to the CBI and the trial court record was summoned. Special PP for CBI appeared and contested the appeal.
6. I have heard ld. counsel for the appellant and ld. special PP for CBI and have carefully perused the record.
7. It is an admitted fact that the appellant alongwith the other coaccused persons in the present case have pleaded guilty to the charges framed against him by trial court. The appellant has been sentenced by the trial court which is as under:
"He is in custody in the present case since 27.4.2003. He is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 (Five) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/ (Rupees One lac) u/s 120B r/w 258/259/420/471/213 IPC and in default of 5 Crl.Appl.No. 08/2009 payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Benefit of set off u/s 428 Cr.PC. is given w.e.f. 27.4.2003.''
8. There is no definite sentencing policy in India and every cases has to be judged on its own facts and circumstances. The observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case 2009 V AD (S. C. ) 515 titled as Sahdev vs. Jaibar @ Jai Dev & Ors. can very well be applied in the present case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. Security of persons and property of the people is an essential function of the State. It could be achieved through instrumentality of criminal law. Undoubtedly, there is a cross cultural conflict where living law must find answer to the new challenges and the courts are required to mould the sentencing system to meet the challenges. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine social order and lay it in ruins. Protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. 6 Crl.Appl.No. 08/2009 Therefore, law as a cornerstone of the edifice of "order" should meet the challenges confronting the society. Friedman in his "Law in Changing Society" stated that, "State of criminal law continues to be as it should be a decisive reflection of social consciousness of society". Therefore, in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or the deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft the modulation sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. For instance a murder committed due to deepseated mutual and personal rivalry may not call for penalty of death. But an organised crime or mass murders of innocent people would call for imposition of death sentence as deterrence. In Mahesh vs. State of MP (1987) 2 SCR 710), this court while refusing to reduce the death sentence observed thus:
"It will be a mockery of justice to permit the accused to escape the extreme penalty of law 7 Crl.Appl.No. 08/2009 when faced with such evidence and such cruel acts. To give the lesser punishment for the accused would be to render the justicing system of the country suspect. The common man will lose faith in courts. In such cases, he understands and appreciates the language of deterrence more than the reformative jargon"
Therefore, undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under such serious threats. It is, therefore, 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 etc. This position was illuminatingly stated by this court in Sevaka Perumal etc. vs. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1991 SC 1463).
The criminal law adheres in general to the principle of proportionality in prescribing liability according to the culpability of each kind of criminal conduct. It ordinarily allows some significant discretion to the judge in arriving at a sentence in each case, presumably to permit sentences that reflect more subtle 8 Crl.Appl.No. 08/2009 considerations of culpability that are raised by the special facts of each case. Judges in essence affirm that punishment ought always to fit the crime; yet in practice sentences are determined largely by other considerations. Sometimes it is the correctional needs of the perpetrator that are offered to justify a sentence. Sometimes the desirability of keeping him out of circulation, and sometimes even the tragic results of his crime. Inevitably these considerations cause a departure from just desert as the basis of punishment and create cases of apparent injustice that are serious and widespread.
Proportion between crime and punishment is a goal respected in principle, and in spite of errant notions, it remains a strong influence in the determination of sentences. The practice of punishing all serious crimes with equal severity is now unknown in civilized societies, but such a radical departure from the principle of proportionality has disappeared from the law only in recent times. Even now for a single grave infraction drastic sentences are imposed. Anything less than a penalty of greatest severity for any serious crime is thought then to be a measure of toleration that is unwarranted an unwise. But in fact, quite apart from those considerations that make punishment unjustifiable when it is out of 9 Crl.Appl.No. 08/2009 proportion to the crime, uniformly disproportionate punishment has some very undesirable practical consequences.
After giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of each case, for deciding just and appropriate sentence to be awarded for an offence, the aggravating and mitigating factor and circumstances in which a crime has been committed are to be delicately balanced on the basis of really relevant circumstances in a dispassionate manner by the Court. Such act of balancing is indeed a difficult task. It has been very aptly indicated in Dennis Councle MCGDautha vs. State of Callifornia: 402 US 183: 28 L.D. 2d 711 that no formula of a foolproof nature is possible that would provide a reasonable criterion in determining a just and appropriate punishment in the infinite variety of circumstances that may affect the gravity of the crime. In the absence of any foolproof formula which may provide any basis for reasonable criteria to correctly assess various circumstances germane to the consideration or gravity of crime, the discretionary judgement in the facts of each case, is the only way in which such judgment may be equitably distinguished".
9. Reliance is also placed upon 2009 IV AD (S.C.) 1 titled as State of Karnataka vs. Muralidhar where in Hon'ble Supreme 10 Crl.Appl.No. 08/2009 Court held as under: "The object should be to protect the society and to deter the criminal in achieving the avowed object of law by imposing appropriate sentence. It is expected that the courts would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects the conscience of the society and the sentencing process has to be stern where it should be.
Imposition of sentence without considering its effect on the social order in may cases may be in reality a futile exercise. The social impact of the crime, e.g. where it relates to offence against women, dacoity, kidnapping, misappropriation of public money, treason and other offence involving moral turpitude or moral delinquency which have great impact on social order, and public interest, cannot be lost sight of and per se require exemplary treatment. Any liberal attitude by imposing meager sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time in respect of such offences will be resultwise counter productive in the long run and against societal interest which needs to be cared for and strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system.
The court will be failing in its duty if appropriate 11 Crl.Appl.No. 08/2009 punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and victim belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of crime warranting public abhorrence and it should "respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal".
10. Now coming to the merits of the case, ld. trial court has rightly observed that magnitude and impact of offence committed by the convicts on the society was so adverse that the trust of a common man in the administration was completely shaken. There remains no doubt that it is one of the most heinous crimes of the history. Due to scam the trust of the common man in the administration was completely shaken. Fake stamps worth hundreds of crores were got printed and sold to the innocent customer as genuine stamps in a preplanned and organized manner and therefore no undue sympathy can be shown to the 12 Crl.Appl.No. 08/2009 appellant as it may result in common man loss of faith and trust in the criminal justice administration system also. It will further give rise to a premium on the offence as instead of a deterrent, image it will create in the mind of common man will be that after committing a fraud of such a great magnitude, a person can get free after spending some time in jail after pleading guilty and paying nominal fine.
11. The sentence awarded by the ld. trial court does not call for any interference. There is no infirmity or illegality in the same. The order of trial court is upheld. The appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. Trial court record alongwith a copy of this order be sent back. A copy of this order be also sent to concerned jail superintendent. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
(MADHU JAIN) ASJ03/NORTH/DELHI Announced in the open court today i.e. 10.02.2010.
13 Crl.Appl.No. 08/2009 Crl.Appl.No. 08/2009 Pramod Mahadev Janvekar vs. CBI 10.2.2010 Present: None.
An application u/s 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal has been filed by the appellant alongwith the appeal. In the application, it is stated that the appellant could not contact his family members or his counsel from inside the jail and when the counsel for the appellant met him in jail after receiving a call in this regard from his family members then the counsel for the appellant got signed the vakalatnama from the appellant and got attested from the jail superintendent and thereafter the present appeal has been filed. It is stated due to above stated reasons the appeal could not be filed within time. There is delay of 2 months in filing the present appeal. It is stated that if the delay in filing the present appeal is not condoned, then 14 Crl.Appl.No. 08/2009 the appellant shall suffer an irreparable loss.
I have heard ld. counsel for the appellant and special PP for CBI on the application for condonation of delay alongwith the appeal on merits.
Sufficient reasons have been shown by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. Furthermore the technicalities should not come in the way of justice and if the appeal is dismissed without giving an opportunity to the appellant of being heard, then he shall suffer an irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money. As such sufficient reasons have been shown by the appellant in not filing the appeal within the stipulated time, the application u/s 5 of Limitation Act filed by the appellant is allowed.
Vide separate order dictated and announced in the open court, the order dated 23.4.2009 and 11.6.2009 passed by the trial court is upheld. The appeal filed by the appellant is 15 Crl.Appl.No. 08/2009 dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. Trial court record alongwith a copy of this order be sent back. A copy of this order be also sent to concerned jail superintendent. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
(MADHU JAIN) ASJ03/NORTH/DELHI 10.2.2010