Rehabilitation, Not Retribution—Delhi High Court Reduces Sentence of Elderly Man Convicted Under Foreigners Act After 27 Years

“Criminal Law Must Salvage, Not Savage”: Delhi High Court delivered a notable judgment in Mohd. Saddiq v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, adopting a reformative approach to criminal sentencing in light of prolonged trial delay, old age, and health conditions of the convict. Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, presiding over the Criminal Appeal No. 313 of 2003, upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone—a little over one year of incarceration—citing compelling mitigating circumstances and a 27-year delay since the alleged offence.

The case involved the conviction of Mohd. Saddiq for rendering assistance to a Pakistani national—accused of illegally staying in India—in contravention of the Foreigners Act. While the appellant was originally sentenced to two years’ rigorous imprisonment, the Court, after taking stock of modern penological thought, ruled that continued imprisonment would serve no penological purpose and would, in fact, result in undue hardship and injustice.

“Modern Penology Emphasizes Rehabilitation Over Harsh Punishment”—Court Relies on Giasuddin and Pramod Kumar Mishra

Justice Gupta drew extensively from the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1977) 3 SCC 287, and Pramod Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1104, to underscore the evolving jurisprudence of sentencing. Quoting Giasuddin, the Court observed:

“Crime is a pathological aberration... the criminal can ordinarily be redeemed... The infliction of harsh and savage punishment is thus a relic of past and regressive times... The goal is salvaging him for society.”

Referring to the Supreme Court’s endorsement of sentencing as a “therapeutic rather than ‘in terrorem’ outlook”, the judgment stressed that factors such as age, time elapsed since the incident, prior conduct, health condition, and scope for reintegration into society must guide sentencing decisions, especially when the offence itself did not involve violence or moral turpitude.

In Pramod Kumar Mishra, the apex court had reiterated:

“It is a well-established principle that while imposing sentence, aggravating and mitigating circumstances of a case are to be taken into consideration.”

Relying on these observations, Justice Gupta held that continued incarceration of the appellant, now nearly 70 years old, ailing, with no prior criminal record, would run contrary to the very spirit of just and humane sentencing.

Conviction Upheld, But Sentence Reduced After Two Decades of Procedural Delay

The appellant was charged under Section 14 read with Sections 13 and 3 of the Foreigners Act, for knowingly assisting a Pakistani national, Abdul Sattar @ Abu Sarid @ Abu Mohd. Sayeed, who was allegedly residing in India illegally. The offence was said to have occurred between July 1997 and July 1998. The FIR was registered in 1998, and conviction came in 2003. However, the appeal remained pending for 22 years.

The Trial Court had sentenced him to two years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500, and an additional month in default. The High Court noted that the appellant had already undergone over a year in custody, and that the long lapse of time itself was a significant factor warranting leniency in sentencing.

“The present case relates to an incident which has occurred 27 years ago while the impugned judgment itself was delivered nearly 22 years ago. The appellant would suffer undue hardship if incarcerated at this stage,” the Court observed.

“A Proper Sentence Is the Amalgam of Many Factors”: Justice Gupta Applies Multi-Factor Sentencing Matrix

Citing the Supreme Court’s guidance in Santa Singh v. State of Punjab, (1976) 4 SCC 190, the Court reiterated that sentencing must not be mechanical. The judgment quotes:

“A proper sentence is the amalgam of many factors... the nature of the offence, the age of the offender, the prospects for rehabilitation, the emotional and mental condition, the possibility of treatment or training... all these must be weighed before sentencing.”

In this case, the Court found that:

• The appellant was elderly and suffered from health complications.

• There was no history of prior criminal conduct.

• The incident was over 27 years old.

• The trial concluded 22 years ago, and the appeal remained pending for decades.

• The fine imposed was already paid.

These cumulative mitigating factors, the Court held, justified modification of sentence without disturbing the findings on conviction.

Appeal Partly Allowed: Sentence Reduced to Time Already Served

While maintaining the appellant’s conviction under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, the Court partly allowed the appeal by reducing the sentence to the period already undergone.

“Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant, the sentence of imprisonment of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him in jail,” the Court ordered.

Additionally, the bail and surety bonds were discharged, and all pending applications disposed of.

A Victory for Reformative Justice in Long-Pending Criminal Appeals

The Delhi High Court's decision in Mohd. Saddiq v. State of NCT of Delhi exemplifies the transformative vision of criminal jurisprudence, where reformation, proportionality, and human dignity take precedence over retribution. In a justice system often criticized for delay and rigidity, this ruling sends a clear message: justice delayed must not become justice denied, and sentencing must reflect contemporary values of fairness and rehabilitation.

Date of Decision: 14 October 2025