The original judgment of the Trial Court convicted and imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years on the accused. However, the accused had already undergone fourteen years of actual custody.
Supreme Court: In a criminal appeal concerning a matter under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’), the division bench of Justice Ranjana Desai and Justice Vikramjit Singh, JJ. observed that the accused had already undergone fourteen years and six months of incarceration. Noting that this period significantly exceeded the original sentence, the Court determined that the ends of justice would be best served by concluding the matter. Accordingly, the accused was directed to be released from custody forthwith.
The Court noted that the accused, originally sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment by the Trial Court, had served over fourteen years and six months due to erroneous judicial proceedings and delays. Upon review, it found the orders of the High Court and the Trial Court to be flawed. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 10-03-2017, the subsequent orders dated 15-04-2017 and 22-04-2017 in the criminal appeal, as well as the Trial Court’s order dated 30-05-2017 in the NDPS case convicting the accused and sentencing him to twenty years’ imprisonment with a fine of ₹10,000 (and one year’s rigorous imprisonment in default), were all set aside.
The Court clarified that, as a result, the original conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years by the Trial Court now stands restored. However, it acknowledged the unfortunate reality that the accused has already served more than fourteen years of actual imprisonment, well beyond the original term.
In the circumstances, the Court stated that, to do complete justice in the matter, it would not be appropriate to remand the criminal appeal to the High Court. Instead, the Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to restore the original sentence imposed on the accused, which was ten years of rigorous imprisonment. Noting that the accused has already undergone fourteen years and six months of incarceration, the Court concluded that the ends of justice would be best served by bringing the matter to a close. Accordingly, the accused was directed to be released from custody forthwith.
Consequently, the criminal appeal, pending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, was rendered infructuous and stood disposed of. The State and the Superintendent of Central Jail, Chandigarh, were directed to release the accused from custody forthwith.
