Govind & Anr. vs State
2010 Latest Caselaw 791 Del

*               IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+               CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 32 OF 2010



%                          Date of Decision: 10th February, 2010


#       GOVIND & ANR.                                ...Petitioners
!                              Through: Mr. R.S. Mishra, Advocate



                               versus

$       STATE                                      ...Respondent
^                              Through: Mr. Sanjay Lau, APP


        CORAM:
*       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
   the Judgment?(No)
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?(No)
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?(No)


                         JUDGMENT

P.K.BHASIN, J:

This revision petition under Sections 397/402 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure was filed by the petitioners assailing the

correctness of the judgment of conviction dated 04/08/2009 and the

order on sentence dated 12/08/2009 passed by the Metropolitan

Magistrate whereby the petitioners-accused were convicted under

Sections 356/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to

undergo RI for three years and fine of Rs.2000/- with default

stipulation under Section 379 IPC and RI for two years and fine of

Rs.2000/- under Section 356 IPC and also the judgment dated

04/01/2010 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge

dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and affirming the judgment and

order of the trial Court.

2. It is to be noted here that after considering the entire evidence

the two Courts below have decided the case against the petitioners and

the position of law is that the scope of revision by the High Court is

very limited. In view of this position of law the counsel for petitioners

chose not to press the revision petition so far as the conviction of the

petitioners is concerned. The learned counsel, however, prayed for

taking a lenient view on the point of sentence submitting that the

petitioner no. 1 is a young boy of 20 or 22 years and that the wife of

petitioner no. 2 has died on 30/01/2010 and that there is nobody else

to take care of his two children.

3. After considering the record of the trial Court, which was

requisitioned, to satisfy myself if in fact any irregularity has been

committed by the trial Court justifying interference by this Court I

have come to the conclusion that there is no illegality or impropriety

in the orders of the two courts below. So, on merits the petitioners do

not have any case and rightly their counsel has not pressed this

petition in respect of the conviction of the two petitioners. Thus, no

interference with the order of conviction and its affirmation by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge is even otherwise warranted.

4. Now coming to the prayer made by the counsel for the

petitioners for reduction in sentence of imprisonment I find that the

petitioner Govind @ Sanju is a young boy. He has no previous

criminal antecedents. Wife of petitioner no.2 has died during the

pendency of this petition. He has also no previous criminal

background. At least, nothing was brought to my notice on behalf of

the State.

5. Considering all the facts and circumstances, this revision

petition is allowed partly by modifying the trial Court's order on

sentence dated 12-08-09 to the extent that the substantive sentences of

imprisonment in respect of the convictions of the two petitioners on

both the counts, i.e. under Sections 356 and 279 IPC, are reduced to

six months on each count. However, both the sentences shall run

concurrently.

P.K. BHASIN,J

February 10, 2010