Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2017 (2) TMI 1326

ppellant on the assessment that the appellant should be given maximum punishment as prescribed i.e. twenty years and thereafter extending it to one and one-half times of the said term - the sentence should be more than minimum and ends of justice would be sub-served if the appellant is given the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 16 years. - The appellant is of 65 years of age and suffering from various ailments - the sentence given in Gujarat case as well as Bombay case would run concurrently - Insofar as fine of ₹ 1 lakh which is imposed by the Trial Court in Gujarat case is concerned, the same would remain - However, as far as fine of ₹ 3 lakhs in Bombay case is concerned, the same is reduced to ₹ 2 Lakhs. Since t .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

s imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of ₹ 1 lakh with default clause to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year in case the fine is not paid. The appellant had challenged the aforesaid conviction and sentence by filing an appeal in the High Court of Gujarat i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 683 of 2004, which has been dismissed by the High Court vide judgment dated 24.10.2008. We may record here that against the sentence awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge even the State had preferred an appeal in the High Court for enhancement of the sentence which had also been dismissed by the High Court. We may also record at the outset that the main reason which has prevailed with the courts below is the confessional stat .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

statement it is specifically stated that the statement was read out to the appellant, which he understood and only thereafter he put his signatures. In the absence of any retraction of any such statement, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Trial Court in treating the said statement as voluntary and acting thereupon. We may also record at this stage that the appellant has already undergone the said sentence of ten years. Notwithstanding the same the main reason for arguing this appeal by Mr. Grover was that it has a bearing on the second case which has originated from Bombay High Court and we shall advert thereto at this juncture. As far as the other appeal is concerned, the appellant was tried by the Special Judge for NDPS, Co .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

ement of punishment stipulated in Section 31 of the NDPS Act and it reads as under: [31. Enhanced punishment for offences after previous conviction. (1) If any person who has been convicted of the commission of, or attempt to commit, or abetment of, or criminal conspiracy to commit, any of the offences punishable under this Act is subsequently convicted of the commission of, or attempt to commit, or abetment of, or criminal conspiracy to commit, an offence punishable under this Act with the same amount of punishment shall be punished for the second and every subsequent offence with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to one and one-half times of the maximum term of imprisonment and also be liable to fine which shall extend to .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

e, the High Court has given thirty years rigorous imprisonment to the appellant on the assessment that the appellant should be given maximum punishment as prescribed i.e. twenty years and thereafter extending it to one and one-half times of the said term. On the facts of this case and after giving our due consideration thereupon we are of the opinion that it was not a case where the appellant should have been given maximum punishment and thereafter multiplier of one and one-half times applied. Since the minimum term of imprisonment as prescribed in sub-section (2) of Section 31 is ten years, on that reckoning, when it is enhanced by one and one-half times, the minimum sentence comes to 15 years. However, in the facts of this case, we are of .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||