Delhi High Court
Puran Singh vs State on 29 November, 2011
Author: Suresh Kait
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.Rev.P. No.435/2011
% Judgment delivered on:29th November, 2011
PURAN SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Nikhil Mehta , Mr.Vinod
Mehta & Mr.Arun Bali, Advs.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Navin Sharma, APP for
State with SI Rajesh, police station
Subzi Mandi in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. With the consent of learned counsel for parties, matter is taken
up for disposal.
2. On 28.09.2011, following order was passed by this Court:-
1. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that vide the
judgment dated 28.10.2010, the petitioner was convicted under
Section 205/471/181/193/417 Indian Penal Code and vide order
on sentence dated 30.10.2010 the petitioner was sentenced as
under:-
'A) For offence punishable u/s 181 IPC, rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 3 years and fine of
Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine further
simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month.
B) For offence punishable u/s 193 IPC, rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 3 years and fine of
Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine further
simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month.
C) For offence punishable u/s 205 IPC, rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 3 years and fine of
Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine further
simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month.
D) For offence punishable u/s 417 IPC, rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 1 years and fine of
Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine further
simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days.
E) For offence punishable u/s 471 IPC, rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 3 years and fine of
Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine further
simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month.'
2. Being aggrieved, petitioner challenged the same before
the Sessions Court. The appellate Court vide judgment dated
24.12.2010, dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner.
3. Vide the instant petition, learned counsel for petitioner,
after seeking instructions submits that he does not dispute the
conviction order, he only prays that the order of sentence dated
30.10.2010 and judgment dated 24.12.2010 passed by learned
District Judge-II cum ASJ (North) Delhi be modified to the
extent of already undergone."
3. He has further submitted that petitioner has completed more than
two years in custody out of his total sentence of 03 years. As per the
Nominal Roll dated 21.10.2011, petitioner has already undergone 01
year 08 months and 20 days as on 03.10.2011. He has also earned
remission period of 03 months and 06 days. Therefore, the unexpired
portion of the sentence of the petitioner is less than one year as on date.
4. Further submitted that petitioner is 53 years having a family
consists of wife and three children, who are all dependent upon him.
Petitioner is the only earning member of the family. Wife of the
petitioner is a 'house-maker' only. Therefore, there is no source of
income to the family. In other way, the family of the petitioner is the
real sufferer due to the incarceration of the petitioner.
5. Keeping the total sentence already undergone by petitioner into
view and the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, while
maintaining the conviction, order on sentence dated 30.10.2010 is
modified to the extent already undergone.
6. Petitioner be released from custody forthwith, if not required in
any other case.
7. It is made clear that fine amount, as imposed vide order on
sentence dated 30.10.2010 shall be deposited with the learned Trial
Court. It shall be a condition precedent to release of petitioner from
custody.
8. Copy of order be sent to the Jail authorities for compliance.
9. In view of above, Criminal Revision Petition No.435/2011
stands partially allowed.
10. Consequently, Criminal M.B. No.1702/2011 renders infructuous
and stands disposed of accordingly.
11. No order to costs.
12. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
November 29, 2011
Mk
