Nanhe Singh vs State
2010 Latest Caselaw 5267 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                Judgment delivered on: November 19, 2010

+      CRIMINAL REV. PET. NO.484/2010

       NANHE SINGH                                        ....PETITIONER
               Through:              Ms. Saahila Lamba, Advocate


                                Versus

       STATE(GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)                       .....RESPONDENT

Through: Mr. R.N. Vats, APP

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest ?

AJIT BHARIHOKE, J.(ORAL)

This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated

07.04.2010 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissing Crl.

Appeal No.16/2009 arising out of the impugned judgment and order on

sentence of the learned M.M., whereby the learned Magistrate held the

petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 279 and 304A

IPC and for the offence under Section 304A IPC sentenced him to

undergo RI for the period of one year and also to pay a fine of `1000/-

and further sentenced him to undergo FIR for the period of six months

and fine of `1000/- for the offence under Section 279 IPC. It was

ordered by learned Magistrate that both the sentences of

imprisonment shall run concurrently.

I have perused the record of the case including the testimony of

witnesses and the judgment under challenge. Learned counsel for the

petitioner, on instructions from the petitioner, submits that the

petitioner admits his guilt and he has no grievance against his

conviction under Section 279 and 304A IPC. However, on the point of

sentence, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that he

has already undergone major portion of his sentence and remaining

unexpired portion of sentence, as per the nominal roll, is less than two

months. Learned counsel contended that the occurrence is of the year

1999 and that the petitioner has already suffered the ordeal of a

protracted trial for more than 10 years. He is the sole bread earner of

his family which includes his aged parents, wife and children. Learned

counsel further submits that petitioner is not a previous convict and no

useful purpose shall be served in requiring him to undergo remaining

portion of his sentence at this belated stage.

On perusal of the nominal roll of the petitioner, it transpires that

he has already suffered incarceration for a period of 04 months and 02

days as on 08.08.2010. Therefore, as on date, the petitioner has

suffered incarceration for a period of 07 months and 13 days. His

conduct in Jail is reported to be satisfactory and there is no record of

previous conviction against him. Taking into account aforesaid factors

and the fact that the petitioner now realises his mistake, I am of the

view that ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment

is reduced to that already undergone. I order accordingly.

With the above modification in the sentence, Crl. Rev. Petition

NO.484/2010 is disposed of.

The petitioner is in judicial custody. I have been informed that he

has already deposited the fine. Therefore, he shall be released

forthwith if not wanted in any other case.

This order be communicated immediately to the Jail authorities.

(AJIT BHARIHOKE) JUDGE NOVEMBER 19, 2010 pst