Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court recently reduced the fine imposed on militants of the banned Kangleipak Communist Party (“KCP”) on possibilities of reformation. Conduct of appellants while serving their sentence in jail and the financial condition of the family, were other considerations taken into account by the court, for relaxing the said penalty.

 “… it is the opinion of this Court that the fine imposed for each of the nine offences for which the appellants have been convicted be Rs. 1,000/- per offence (amounting to a total of Rs. 9,000/- for each appellant) and in default of payment thereof, SI for one month for each offence (amounting to a total of nine months in default thereof for each appellant). It is directed accordingly”, a division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anish Dayal, while allowing the appeal said.

The appellants were to serve 30 months of additional sentence in default of payment of fine of Rs. 39,000 each, which, as argued by the appellants, was excessive and more than 1/3rd of the substantive sentence of 7 years imposed on the appellants.

The Special Public Prosecutor for the State contended that:

(i) Since the appeal was filed beyond the limitation period of 30 days as well as an extended period of 90 days, the same was not maintainable;

(ii) Principles related to the levy of fines and imprisonment in default of payment of fine have been incorporated under Ss. 63 to 67 of the Penal Code, 1860.

Reliance was inter-alia placed on State of MP v. Udham, (2019) 10 SCC 300, NCT of Delhi v. Sonu, Crl. A. No. 1256 of 2019 and Mohd. Issa v. State, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 1377.

“… it is categorically enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shantilal (Shantilal v. State of MP, (2007) 11 SCC 243) that a term of imprisonment in default of payment of fine is not a sentence but a penalty incurred for non-payment. Therefore, there is no reason why the appellants are being penalised for their poor financial condition since that has no relation to the sentence undergone for the offences they were convicted for”, the court further said.

Brief Background

The appellants preferred an appeal under section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (“NIA Act”) seeking reduction of fine/reduction of the default sentence imposed in NIA case no. RC – 05/2017/NIA/DLI, passed vide order dated 29.04.2022 by Ld. ASJ, Patiala House Courts, Delhi. 

The allegations made against the appellants were that they were active cadres of the Kangleipak Communist Party (“KCP”), a banned terrorist organisation, and were allegedly involved in anti-national and terrorist activities in Manipur and other parts of India.

It was further alleged that they procured arms and ammunition to carry out terrorist activities in the country, including parts of Delhi-NCR.

On 12.01.2017, the disclosure statement of Appellant 2 revealed that on the instructions of Appellant 1, Appellant 2 collected four hand grenades, one 9 mm pistol, and six 9 mm live cartridges from another co-accused, Sanabam Inobi.

Case Title: Khoiram Ranjit Singh v. State | Crl. A. 191/2023 & MA 3163/2023