'Not Same Transaction': Delhi High Court Rejects Convict's Plea Seeking Concurrent Running Of Sentences In UAPA Cases
The Delhi High Court yesterday dismissed a plea moved by a convict seeking concurrent running of his jail terms in two UAPA cases, observing that the offences committed by him did not form part of the same transaction. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed the plea moved by Mohsin Ibrahim Sayyed who was convicted by NIA courts in Greater Bombay and the national capital. He was awarded eight...
The Delhi High Court yesterday dismissed a plea moved by a convict seeking concurrent running of his jail terms in two UAPA cases, observing that the offences committed by him did not form part of the same transaction.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed the plea moved by Mohsin Ibrahim Sayyed who was convicted by NIA courts in Greater Bombay and the national capital. He was awarded eight and seven years of rigorous imprisonment respectively.
The court noted that in one of the cases, Sayyed was convicted for conspiring to carry out attack in Haridwar city during Ardh Kumbh Mela, and in the other, for promoting ISIS activities including the recruitment of youths as well as for planning the assassination of a leader of Hindu Mahasabha.
“Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the offences committed in the two cases, for which petitioner has been convicted, cannot be termed to be a part of a "same transaction”, the court said.
It added that merely because Sayyed has been convicted under similar provisions of IPC and UAPA in both cases, it cannot entitle him to seek concurrent running of the sentence, as the facts of both cases do not form part of the same transaction.
Furthermore, Justice Sharma said though the consecutive running of sentences would mean fifteen years of total imprisonment for Sayyed, however he has not been awarded the maximum sentence by either of the Courts, which could have been imprisonment for life.
“Thus, even taking into consideration the totality principle propounded by the Hon‟ble Apex Court, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has already been awarded lesser sentence by both the learned Trial Courts, and thus, consecutive running of sentences of eight years and seven years, will not cause prejudice to the petitioner as far as total period of sentence vis-a-vis offence committed by him is concerned,” the court said.
It concluded that terrorism not only threatens the national security of the country but also the very fabric of society by targeting innocent civilians and institutions indiscriminately, with an aim to instil fear among the common and innocent citizens of a country.
“The impact of such terrorist activities on society is profound and far-reaching, as these crimes have the capacity to sow fear and insecurity among communities, as well as disrupt social harmony. They also result in loss of innocent lives, destruction of property, and destabilization of regions. These impacts are often long-lasting,” the court said.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Siddharth Sunil, Advocate
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Akshai Malik, SPP for NIA with Mr. Khawar Saleem and Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocates
Title: MOHSIN IBRAHIM SAYYED v. NIA
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 701