Mohd. Aish Ur Rehman vs State
2011 Latest Caselaw 5174 Del

$~34
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+              CRL. Appeal No.676/2008

%              Judgment delivered on: 20th October, 2011

MOHD. AISH UR REHMAN                                ..... Appellant
                                  Through : Mr. S.N. Thakur, Adv.

                       versus


STATE                                             ..... Respondent
                                  Through : Ms.Fizani Hussain, APP
                                  with ASI Shailender PS-Spl. Cell
                                  Range.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers
        may be allowed to see the judgment?
     2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
     3. Whether the judgment should be reported
        in the Digest?

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. Vide order dated 06.07.2011, Crl.M.A. No.6454/2011 for

early hearing was allowed on the ground that the applicant

has already undergone incarceration for substantial period of

sentence of seven years RI awarded to him. Accordingly

Registry was directed list the Appeal on 21.09.2011 in the

category of "after notice miscellaneous matters"

2. On 21.09.2011, since the LCR was not available as

reported to have been sent for digitization, this matter was

adjourned on 19.10.2011.

3. Vide the said order, jail authorities were directed to

produce the appellant on the next date and the same has

been complied with.

4. The appellant was arrested on 11.05.2005. Since then,

he is in custody. The petitioner has completed 6 years 5

months and 8 days in jail as on date.

6. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that he did not

dispute the conviction order. Further he is requesting to

modify the sentence order dated 04.04.2008 already

undergone, whereby the appellant was directed to RI for 7

years and a fine for Rs.50,000/- was also imposed for an

offence U/s 489C IPC.

7. Further submits that since the date of arrest

throughout, he remained in jail. He never even sent for

socializing with his family as per the policy of the

Government.

8. In my opinion, the Petitioner has suffered substantial

period of RI in jail as he is in Jail for 6 years 5 months and 8

days out of the total sentence of 7 years. The substantive

justice would be, if I accept the request of the Ld. Counsel of

the Appellant.

9. Therefore, in the interest of justice, while maintaining

the conviction, I modify the order of sentence dated

04.04.2008 to the extent already undergone.

10. Jail authorities are directed to release the appellant

forthwith.

11. Copy of this order be sent to the jail authorities.

12. Dasti.

13. Appeal stands disposed of.

SURESH KAIT, J

October 20th 2011 JG