Ram Kumar vs State
2011 Latest Caselaw 5175 Del

$~35
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+              CRL. Appeal No.959/2011

%              Judgment delivered on:20th October, 2011

        RAM KUMAR                                   ..... Appellant
                                        Through : Mr.S. Lamba, Adv.

                       versus


        STATE                                      ..... Respondent
                              Through : Ms.Fizani Hussain, APP
                              with SI Iccha Ram, New Friends
                              Colony.


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 the impugned Judgment dated 08.10.2010, the

Petitioner was held guilty U/s 392 IPC, whereas he was

acquitted U/s 397/395 IPC.

2. Vide order on sentence dated 18.10.2010, he was

directed to undergo RI for 5 years and to pay a fine of

Rs.2,000/- each u/s 392/34IPC

3. Ld. Amicus Curiae for appellant submits that appellant

has already undergone RI for 03 years and 07 months and

the same is evident from the nominal roll dated 04.07.2011

as the total period as on date is 3 years 3 months and 16

days and total remission earned is 2 months and 5 days.

Therefore, he has completed total 3 years 8 months and

more than 21 days.

4. Further submits that she is not disputing the conviction

order dated 08.10.2010. Only she is praying that the order of

sentence dated 18.10.2010 be modified to the extent

already undergone.

5. The total sentence in the said case is 5 years and the

appellant has already undergone more than 3 years 8

months and throughout he was remained in jail.

6. In these circumstances, the substantive justice would

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

Appellant.

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

the conviction, I modify the order of sentence dated

18.10.2010 to the extent already undergone.

8. Jail authorities are directed to release the appellant

forthwith.

9. Copy of this order be sent to the jail authorities for

compliance.

10. Dasti.

11. Crl. A. 959/2011 allowed as modified.

12. In view of the appeal having been disposed of, Crl. M.B.

No.1357/2011 become infructuous & is dismissed as

infructuous.

SURESH KAIT, J

October 20th 2011 JG