Admission Of Guilt Is Clear Indication Of Possibility Of Reform: Delhi HC Reduces Fine Of Two Convicted Members Of Banned Terrorist Organization KPC
|The Delhi High Court reduced the imposed fine from Rs 39,000 to Rs 9,000 against two members of the banned terrorist organization Kangleipak Communist Party (KCP) convicted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (ESA). The Court observed that admission of guilt is a clear indication of the possibility of reform.
The Court referred to the socio-economic inquiry report (SEI Report) of the Appellants and noted that they are unable to pay the fines in full and would, therefore, be subject to default sentences. The Court observed that the Appellants should not be penalised for their financial situation, which is unrelated to the offences they were convicted of.
The Bench comprising Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anish Dayal noted, “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”.
Advocates Tara Narula and Astha appeared for the Appellants, and Special Public Prosecutor Gautam Narayan appeared for the Respondent.
Two Criminal Appeals were filed before the Court seeking a reduction of fine and/or reduction of the default sentence imposed on the Appellants in the Conviction Order of the Trial Court. The Appellants were accused of being active cadres KCP and involved in anti-national and terrorist activities in Manipur and other parts of India. In furtherance of a larger conspiracy, it was alleged that they procured arms and ammunition to carry out terrorist activities in other parts of India, including Delhi NCR.
The Court referred to Sections 63 to 70 of the IPC regarding the power of courts to impose fines. The Court noted that the SEI Report shows that the Appellants and their families are unable to pay the fines in full and would, therefore, be subject to default sentences. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s Dictum in the case of Shantilal v State of Madhya Pradesh [(2007) 11 SCC 243] and reiterated that imprisonment in default of payment of a fine is a penalty and not a sentence. Therefore, the Court noted that the appellants should not be penalised for their financial situation, which is unrelated to the offences they were convicted of.
Therefore, the Court directed for the modification of the fine imposed to Rs 9,000 each 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)
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Appeals.
Accordingly, the Court Cause Title: Khoiram Ranjit Singh @ Rocky @ Great Macha @ Poerei Meitei v State (NIA)