Ram Avtar Saini vs The State (Nct Of Delhi)
2010 Latest Caselaw 5294 Del

                * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                            Date of Reserve: 18th November, 2010
                                               Date of Order: 22nd November, 2010
+ W.P.(Crl.) No. 745/2010
%                                                                      22.11.2010

        Ram Avtar Saini                                          ... Petitioner
                                 Through: Mr. P.K.Bhardwaj, Mr. N.K.Sharma &
                                 Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocates

                Versus


        The State (NCT of Delhi)                         ... Respondent
                          Through: Ms. Meera Bhatia, ASC for the State
                          With Mr. Roshan Kumar, IO


JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

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

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?                                   Yes.

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?                           Yes.

JUDGMENT

By the present petition, petitioner has assailed an order dated

24th January, 2008 whereby the learned MM convicted the petitioner on his

plea of guilt and sentenced the petitioner to the imprisonment already

undergone by him and fine which had already been paid by the petitioner as

compensation to the complainant after settling the matter with the

complainant. This order was passed in January, 2008 and the present

petition has been made in May, 2010 after about two years of passing of

order. The order is assailed on the ground that the trial Court did not follow

the procedure as laid down under Section 265A to 265E of Cr.P.C.

(procedure prescribed for plea bargaining) and the order was therefore bad in

law and the sentence awarded was bad in law.

2. The contention of the petitioner is devoid of merits. The

petitioner had not made an application for plea bargaining, rather after facing

trial for about 16-17 years, the petitioner compromised with the complainant

bank and paid back the amount of which the complainant bank was deprived

of and pleaded guilty, knowing fully well that the petitioner was going to be let

off on the imprisonment already undergone. The learned MM recorded

voluntarily made plea of guilt of the petitioner and announced the sentence on

the same day, letting off the petitioner on imprisonment already undergone.

The petitioner had no right to file an appeal therefore no appeal was

preferred. The present petition made by the petitioner cannot be entertained

as it would amount to entertaining an appeal against an order passed on plea

of guilt. The petition is hereby dismissed.

November 22, 2010                         SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vn