Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Virender Kumar Rai S/O Ganpati Rai on 23 August, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER BHAT, A.S.J., DWARKA
COURTS, NEW DELHI.
SC No. 49/09
Unique Case ID No.02405R0846782007
State Vs. 1. Virender Kumar Rai s/o Ganpati Rai
r/o H. No. 232, Pocket-6, Site-3,
Nasir Pur, Dwarka, Delhi.
2. Raj Kumar s/o Sh. Raj Pal
r/o H. No. 7/123, Nakul Gali,
Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi.
3. Rohtash s/o Sh. Chander Bhan,
r/o RZ-68, Indira Park, Uttam Nagar,
Delhi.
4. Hari Narayan s/o Hari Dutt
r/o H. No. 117, Gali No. 2,
Jain Road, Laxmi Vihar,
Kakrola More, Delhi.
5. Satpal @ Sittu s/o Chander Bhan
r/o H. No. 301, Village Mangol Pur,
Delhi.
6. Yagya Dutt Sharma s/o Sh. Chander Bhan
r/o H. No. RZ-H/180, Raj Nagar-II,
Palam Colony, Delhi.
Date of Institution :09.05.2007.
FIR No. 255 dated 11.03.2007.
U/s. 255/256/258/259/420/468/471/473/412/411/34 IPC
P.S. Dwarka.
ORDER ON SENTENCE
1.Vide judgment dated 16.08.2012, the above named six convicts have been convicted as under:-
SC No.49/09 Page 1 of 9(i) All the convicts have been convicted for having committed the offences punishable u/s 255/259/260/420/120B IPC
(ii) convicts Virender Kumar Rai, Hari Narain, Yagya Dutt Sharma and Rohtash have also been convicted for having committed the offence punishable u/s 256 IPC.
(iii)convict Satpal has also been convicted for having committed offence punishable u/s 258 IPC.
(iv)convict Virender Kumar Rai has also been convicted for having committed offences punishable u/s 170/420/468/473 IPC.
(v) convicts Virender Kumar Rai and Hari Narain have further been convicted for having committed offences punishable u/s 489D as well as u/s 489D/120 B IPC.
2. Ld. APP submitted that the offence committed by the convicts is very grave in nature as they had set up a parallel machinery for manufacture of fake postal stamps and fake currency notes. He submitted that there is no estimate as to of how much value, they had sold the fake postal stamps and the fake currency notes before they were caught. According to him the convicts have caused immense loss to the State exchequer and keeping in view the gravity of the offence, the convicts deserve very severe punishment.
3. Ld. APP also submitted that the convicts Hari Narain, Rohtash and Virender Kumar Rai are habitual offenders. They are accused in a similar case in Ranchi also. Further cases of similar nature are pending against them in Delhi also. He also submitted that convict Hari Narain has already been convicted u/s 120B (r/w SC No.49/09 Page 2 of 9 Sections 419/420/467/469/409 IPC) of IPC in CBI Case bearing RC No. S19/1999 which was a case regarding forgery of KVPs. He further submitted that convict Rohtash has also been convicted in the aforesaid CBI case for the same offence. It is his submission that these convicts have chosen to tread the same path again after the conviction in the aforesaid case and therefore, deserve the maximum possible sentence. He has filed the certified copies of the judgment and the order on sentence passed against the two convicts in the aforementioned case.
4. Convicts Virender Kumar Rai, Hari Narain and Rohtash did not dispute that they are facing other criminal cases also in Ranchi as well as in Delhi. However, they submitted that they have been implicated falsely in those cases.
5. Convicts Rohtash and Hari Narain also did not dispute that they have been convicted in the aforementioned CBI case.
6. Ld. Counsel Sh. P.K. Bhardwaj, advocae apparing for convicts Hari Narain, Virender Kumar Rai and Satpal did not make any submissions on the quantum of sentence to be imposed upon the convicts. He submits that it was a practice prevalent under British Colonial Rule that an lawyer of Indian origin would beg before a Judge of British Origin for mercy for his clients. According to him, under the prevalent criminal justice system in India at present, it should be a direct dialogue between Judge and the convicts, which would enable the Judge to arrive at a suitable sentence to be imposed upon the convicts.
SC No.49/09 Page 3 of 97. I do not agree with the ld. Counsel. Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C., which makes it mandatory for the Judge to hear the convict before sentencing him, nowhere provides that convict has to be heard in person and not through counsel. A duly appointed lawyer is the mouth piece of his client (accused or the convict) and it is his duty to put forth to the Court mitigating circumstances appearing in favour of the convict so that his client gets just punishment. It is very wrong notion to think that a lawyer begs for mercy for his client. He only assists the Court in determining the right sentence for the convict. The racial tone sounded by Sh. Bhardwaj, Advocate by making reference to judicial system under British rule and the present judicial system is not only unwarranted but most unfortunate. In my opinion lawyers of Indian origin under British rule also, when appearing in Courts, were never undermined or disrespected. They never begged for mercy for their clients but properly assisted the Courts in doing complete justice to their clients.
8. Be that as it may, since the lawyer has declined to assist this Court on behalf of convicts Hari Narain, Virender Kumar Rai and Satpal, I heard these convicts in person on the quantum of sentence.
9. Convict Hari Narain pleaded that a lenient view may be taken in his favour. He submitted that he has three daughters and one son. The elder daughter is already married. Two daughters are still to be married and his son is a psychiatric patient. According to him his family is living in a rented accommodation and is at the verge of starvation as he was the SC No.49/09 Page 4 of 9 only bread earner of the family.
10. Convict Virender Kumar Rai submitted that he is 41 years of age as of now and his father has recently expired. He submitted that he committed the offence in a youthful frenzy without realising its consequences. He also submitted that he is a married person having a son aged 15 years and a daughter 11 years. His family has no source of income and is being fed by his brother. He urged this court to impose minimum possible sentence upon him.
11. Convict Satpal is 36 years old and submitted that his parents have already expired. He has a wife and a nine years old son who are being looked after by his younger brother as they have no other source of income. He also pleaded for a lenient view.
12. Convict Raj Kumar being of 35 years of age submitted that he has already suffered a lot by being an convict in this case as his wife deserted his family soon after he was arrested in this case. According to him his family consisting of his parents, younger sister and younger brother have also suffered intense ignominy on account of present case and hence he may be let off leniently.
13. On behalf of convict Yagya Dutt Sharma, his counsel Sh. R.K. Naveen, Advocate, submitted that he is just 42 years of age and has clean antecedents. He has a widowed mother besides three daughters aged 16 years, 14 years and 7 years to look after SC No.49/09 Page 5 of 9 and who have no other source of income except him. He prayed that the convict be sentenced to imprisonment already undergone.
14. Sh. Dalip Singh, advocate appearing for convict Rohtash submitted that he is 52 years of age. He has old age parents besides his wife and three sons to maintain. He urged to this court to take a lenient view in favour of the convict.
15. It may be noted here that the age of the convicts and the circumstances in which their family members are placed, after their being in custody in a particular case, though is one of the factors is to be considered while determining the quantum of sentence to be imposed but that is not the only factor for consideration at that stage. The gravity of the offence committed by the convict, his past antecedents,social status of the convict, the ramifications of the offence upon the whole society and the like are the factors which have to be borne in mind while sentencing a convict.
16. The factors to be taken into account while deciding adequate punishment in a given case have been succinctly culled out by Delhi High Court in Khem Chand vs. State of Delhi 2008(4) JCC 2497. The criminal and crime are both important for the purposes of sentence. Manner in which crime has been committed, violence, if any, accompanying the crime, relatinoship between victim and criminal, impact of crime upon the victim, the antecedents of the offender, social status or backwardness of the offender etc. are the factors to be borne in mind while assessing as to what could be an appropriate sentence in a case.
SC No.49/09 Page 6 of 917. In the instant case, though all the convicts were of young age when the offence was committed, yet it cannot be ignored that they had taken on the might of the State. They had settled a parallel machinery for manufacture and sale of counterfeit postal stamps and counterfeit currency notes thereby jeopardising the whole economy of the country. Our country as a whole is finding it very difficult to curb the menace of counterfeit currency notes and counterfeit postal stamps which have come into the market and are being exchanged by unwary members of the public, almost daily. Such type of offences pose a great danger into the security and integrity of our country and hence cannot be taken leniently. The perpetrators of such crimes deserve to be dealt with very harshly in order to send a strong message to the society so that no other person dares to indulge in such criminal activity. The sentence to such convicts should certainly have a deterrent effect.
18. As noted herein above, it has come on record that this is not the only case in which the convicts have been implicated. Convict Hari Narain and Rohtash have already been convicted and sentenced for fabrication and forgery of post office Kissan Vikas Patrikas. Convicts Virender Kumar Rai, Hari Narain and Rohtash are facing other criminal cases of like nature in Delhi as well as in Ranchi. It is, therefore, apparent that the convicts except convict Raj Kumar are habitual offenders and there is no scope of their mending their ways and coming into the main stream.
19. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances and considering the role played by the convicts, in the commission SC No.49/09 Page 7 of 9 of offence in the instant case, they are sentenced as under:-
(i) All the convicts are sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone for having committed the offences punishable u/s 255/259/260/420/120B IPC alongwith a fine of Rs. 25,000/- each. The convicts shall suffer further imprisonment for a period of six months in case of non payment of fine.
(ii) Convicts Virender Kumar Rai, Hari Narain, Yagya Dutt Sharma and Rohtash are sentenced to RI for a period of seven years with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- each for having committed the offence punishable u/s 256 IPC. The convicts shall suffer further imprisonment for a period of six months, in case of default in payment of fine.
(iii)Convict Satpal is sentenced to RI for a period of seven years with a fine of Rs. 25,000/ for having committed offence punishable u/s 258 IPC. The convict shall suffer further imprisonment for a period of six months, in case of default in payment of fine.
(iv)convict Virender Kumar Rai is also sentenced to RI for a period of two years for having committed offences punishable u/s 170 IPC. He is further sentenced to RI for a period of seven years with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- for having committed offence punishable u/s 420 IPC. The convict shall suffer further imprisonment for a period of six months, in case of default in payment of fine. He is also sentenced to RI SC No.49/09 Page 8 of 9 for a period of seven years for having committed offence punishable u/s 468 IPC alongwith fine of Rs. 25,000/-. The convict shall suffer further imprisonment for a period of six months, in case of default in payment of fine. He is also sentenced to RI for a period of seven years with a fine of Rs.
25,000/- for having committed offence punishable u/s 473 IPC. The convict shall suffer further imprisonment for a period of six months, in case of default in payment of fine.
(v) Convicts Virender Kumar Rai and Hari Narain are also sentenced to RI for a period of ten years with a fine of Rs. 50,000/- each for having committed offence punishable u/s 489D IPC. They shall suffer further imprisonment for a period of one year in case of default in payment of fine.
(vi)Convicts Virender Kumar Rai and Hari Narain are further sentenced to RI for a period of ten years with a fine of Rs. 50,000/- each for having committed offence punishable u/s 489D/120 B IPC. They shall suffer further imprisonment for a period of one year in case of default in payment of fine.
20. All the aforesaid sentences shall run concurrently. The convicts shall be entitled to benefit u/s 428 Cr.P.C.
21. Copies of the judgment and Order on sentence be supplied to all the convicts.
Announced in open (VIRENDER BHAT)
Court on 23.08.2012. A.S.J. :Dwarka Courts
New Delhi.
SC No.49/09 Page 9 of 9