Partly allowed

Abdul Hamid Mohd.Adam Gatrath v. the Asstt.Commissioner of Police and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Oct 2008APEAL/1062/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal appeal against the conviction for counterfeit currency under IPC Sections 489-B and 489-C. While confirming the conviction, the court reduced the sentence for Section 489-B from ten years to the period the appellant had already undergone in jail due to his physical handicap and long antecedent remission credits. The sentence for Section 489-C was affirmed.

What did the court decide?

The order of conviction is confirmed, but the sentence of ten years under Section 489-B IPC is reduced to the period the appellant has already undergone in jail.

2. The appellant has been convicted by the trial court for an offence under Section 489-B of the IPC and is sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, to further Simple Imprisonment for one year and for the offence under Section 489-C and is sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default, for further six months. The

3. Prosecution case is that the accused had sent the parcel containing huge quantity of counterfeit currency notes from Hyderabad. The said counterfeit currency notes which were sent in a parcel were received by one Mohammed Nadeem Mustafa Ansari on 28th May, 2001. Mohammed Nadeem was arrested and he led the police investigation to Ayub Khan who was also found in the possession of small quantity of counterfeit currency notes. Sanction to apply MCOC Act, 1999 was granted. Both the accused were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 489-B and 489-C of IPC. By judgment and order dated 11th March, 2002, they were sentenced to suffer RI for four years and three years, respectively. The trial Court dropped the charges against the accused under the MCOC Act, 1999.

4. Thereafter, on 13th May, 2003, the appellant was arrested from Hyderabad and he was also tried for the offence under Section 489-B and 489-C and read with provisions of the MCOC Act, 1999. The appellant,

however, discharged by the Special Judge under the MCOC Act for the offence punishable under MCOC Act by judgment and order dated 18th July, 2003. The appellant, therefore, was tried for the remaining two offences under Section 489-B and 489-C of the said Act.

5. Counsel for the appellant has taken me through the evidence which is adduced by the prosecution. He submits that he does not wish to press for the finding of the conviction recorded by the trial court. He, however, submits that the sentence which is imposed by the trial court may be reduced. He invited my attention to the finding recorded by the trial court that the appellant is a handicapped person.

6. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, vehemently opposed this submission. He submits that the fake currency notes of Rs.10 lakhs was dispatched by the appellant and that the prosecution case had been proved and the appellant has been convicted. He invited my attention to the observations made by the Sessions Court on the point of sentence. He

submitted that merely because the appellant was handicapped person, he was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 10 years. He submitted that the trial court had recorded that ordinarily if the appellant had not been handicapped, it was a fit case where the appellant ought to have been sentenced to suffer RI for life. He submitted, therefore, that no case is made out for reduction of the sentence imposed by the trial court.

. The appellant has already undergone more than 6 years of the sentence and if the period of remission is added to the said period which the appellant has undergone in jail, the appellant has almost completed 70% term of 10 years because ordinarily convict gets about 100 days in a year towards his remission. Therefore, if the period of 6 years which he has already undergone is calculated, the number of years the

appellant would be entitled to get a remission, is of more than two years. Thus, the appellant having already undergone most of the sentence, it would be appropriate if the sentence is reduced from 10 years to the period he has already undergone. Further, the appellant was discharged by the trial court for the serious charges which were levelled against him under the MCOC. Thirdly, the appellant admittedly is a handicapped person. The nature of evidence which is brought on record also discloses that a long period of time had lapsed after the actual dispatch was made by the appellant herein. Taking an overall view of the matter, therefore, this is a fit case where the sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial court is reduced to the period he has already undergone in jail.

8. The appeal is partly allowed. The order of conviction awarded by the trial court is confirmed. The appellant, however, shall be released for the period which he has already undergone. It is an admitted position that the appellant was not released on parole during the period of 6 years.

Abdul Hamid Mohd.Adam Gatrath v. the Asstt.Commissioner of Police and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Hamid Mohd.Adam Gatrath v. the Asstt.Commissioner of Police and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subarao Daji Padalkar Vs Bhimrao Bapu Bandagar and Ors.

Basant Kumar Devraj Agarwal Vs Ram Jiwan Saraf and Anr.

Damji Ramji Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri Gaja @ Gajanan Dhondu Shinde . Vs the State of Maharashtra .

Pandit Nav Mhatre Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sajjan Gupta (Huf) Vs Mci Securities Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.