Delhi District Court
Cri. Appeal No.49/13 vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 22 February, 2014
Cri. Appeal no.49/13
Smt. Rajrani @ Topli
22.02.2014
Pre: Appellant in person.
Ld. Counsel for the appellant.
File perused.
Vide separate detailed order/ judgment placed along side in the file,
judgment dated 09.01.2013 is upheld. I have also perused the order on
sentence dt. 07.05.2013. The appellant being a female and aged about 70
years old, was sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone by her
during the course of trial and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- failing which she
shall be liable to undergo SI for 45 days. Since, fine was not paid by her she
was taken into custody and sent to JC. However, during the course of trial,
ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that fine has been deposited. Since,
now fine has been deposited as per submission of ld. Counsel for the appellant
so, sentence dated 07.05.2013 has already been served thus appeal of the
appellant has become infructuous. Accordingly, appeal of the appellant
stands dismissed. Trial Court record, if any, be sent back with a copy of the
order. Appeal petition/ proceedings be consigned to record room.
(RAJ KAPOOR)
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-03
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS NEW DELHI
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJ KAPOOR, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
(03) , PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI
Criminal Appeal No.49/13
IN THE MATTER OF :
Smt.Raj Rani @ Topli
w/o Sh. Kishan Lal
R/o D-547, J J Colony,
Inderpuri, New Delhi.
..............Appellant
Versus
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
FIR no.11/09
PS Inder Puri
U/s 21/61/85 NDPS, Act
........... Respondent
22.02.2014
ORDER
1. This appeal petition has been filed u/s 374 Cr. PC against the judgment of conviction dated 09.01.2013 and order on sentence dt. 07.05.2013 passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, in the above noted case, whereby appellant, aged about 70 years old, was awarded sentence to undergo for the period already undergone by her during the course of trial and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- failing which she shall be liable to undergo SI for 45 days. Since, fine was not paid by her she was taken into custody and sent to JC.
2. Briefly the factual matrix of the case is that appellant on 25.01.2009, at about 4.20 pm in D Block pull, JJ colony, on the way leading towards Railway Bridge from Inderpuri, within the jurisdiction of PS Inderpuri, the patrolling party apprehended the accused on suspicion and found contraband substance i.e diacetylmorphine (smack powder) in the quantity of 15.890 gm and as per report, the percentage of the said substance was found to be 0.5% being a small quantity from the total quantity of recovered substance of less than 1gm from the possession of the accused. Accordingly, FIR No. 11/09, PS Inderpuri was registered. The challan was filed on 25.03.2009. On appearance of the accused before trial court, a charge for the offence under Section 21(1)/61/85 of NDPS Act was framed against her to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. During the course of trial ld. Trial court examined nine witnesses namely PW1 Constable Hariram, PW2 HC Kishan Singh, PW3 Inspector Hiralal, PW4 WASI Kusum, PW5 HC Mahesh Chand, PW6 HC Ishwender, PW7 Constable Majnu, PW8 ASI Jagat Singh and PW9 ASI Suraj Bhan to prove the case against the accused.
4. After following the due course of law, ld. Trial court convicted the appellant u/s 21/61/85 NDPS Act and sentenced her to undergo for the period already undergone by her during the course of trial and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- failing which she shall be liable to undergo SI for 45 days. Since, fine was not paid by her she was taken into custody and sent to JC. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned judgment dated 09.01.2013 of conviction and order on sentence dated 07.05.2013, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.
5. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant has already deposited the fine of Rs.10,000/-. Ld. Counsel for the appellant also submitted that there is no public witness in the case and on the basis of official / police witnesses, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced. Ld. Counsel again submitted that appellant is a female and she is aged about 70 years old. In support of his contentions ld. Counsel for the appellant has filed the following judgments :-
i. 2002 (2) JCC 1376;
ii. 1999 AIR SC 2378;
iii. 2011 (121) DRJ 166;
iv. 2000 SCC (Cri) 1228
v. JT 2002 (4) SC 68;
vi. 2011 IV AD (Delhi) 177;
vii. 2000 Cri. LJ 3181;
viii. 2010 (4) JCC (Narcotics);
ix. 2010 (2) JCC (Narcotics);
x. 84/2000 DLT 4646.
6. The aforesaid judgments are not applicable in the instant case precisely for the reasons that the facts of this case and the citations relied upon by the ld. Counsel for the appellant , are entirely distinct. I have also given careful consideration to the submissions of ld. Counsel for the appellant. I have also gone through the trial court record. Ld. Trial Court has convicted the appellant on the grounds that Seizure of the case property has been proved beyond doubt since all the witnesses have stated that the case property was recovered from the accused and correctly identified her as well as the case property which was proved in duly sealed condition. As per the result of examination, the sample which was shown as Ex.R1 in the report was found be containing Paracetamol, caffeine, Acetylcodeine, Monoacetymorphine, Diacetylmorphine and Alprazolam. It was further mentioned the percentage of Diacetylmorphine and Alprazolam was 0.5% and 5.74% respectively. Ld. Trial court has also observed that although, no public witness have been joined in the investigation, however, the said fact itself cannot be a ground for rejecting the unimpeached testimony of the PWs and ld. Trial court took resort to the judgments i.e. Suder Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1956 SC 411, Matajog Dubey v. H.C. Bahri, AIR 1956 SC 44 ; Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karamjit Singh Vs. State (Delhi Administration) reported in AIR 2003 SC 1311. In view of these facts and circumstances of the case, judgment dated 09.01.2013 is upheld. I have also perused the order on sentence dt. 07.05.2013. The appellant being a female and aged about 70 years old, was sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone by her during the course of trial and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- failing which she shall be liable to undergo SI for 45 days. Since, fine was not paid by her she was taken into custody and sent to JC. However, during the course of trial, ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that fine has been deposited. Since, now fine has been deposited as per submission of ld. Counsel for the appellant so, sentence dated 07.05.2013 has already been served thus appeal of the appellant has become infructuous. Accordingly, appeal of the appellant stands dismissed. Trial Court record, if any, be sent back with a copy of the order. Appeal petition/ proceedings be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 22.02.2014 (RAJ KAPOOR) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-03 PATIALA HOUSE COURTS NEW DELHI