Naseem vs State
2011 Latest Caselaw 4689 Del

$~10
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+       CRL.Rev.P.No.388/2011 & Crl.M.B. No.1536/2011

%              Judgment delivered on: 22th September,2011

        NASEEM                                        ..... Petitioner
                                   Through:Mr.Sunil Tiwari, Adv.
                      versus
        STATE                                      ..... Respondent
                                   Through : Ms.Ritu Gauba, APP.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
        to see the judgment?                     NO
     2. To be referred to Reporter or not?        NO
     3. Whether the judgment should be reported NO
        in the Digest?

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits on

instruction that the petitioner is not challenging the

conviction and order on sentence passed by the learned Trial

Court; which were upheld in appeal before learned Additional

Sessions Judge. Only he is asking to release the petitioner on

the sentence already undergone.

2. I note that the petitioner was held guilty under Section

53/116 D. P. Act vide judgment dated 09.03.2011 and vide

order on sentence dated 17.03.2011 passed by learned Trial

Court, has been sentenced to undergo RI for 04 months &

fine of ` 3,000/-.

3. Being aggrieved, petitioner had filed Criminal Appeal

before learned Additional Sessions Judge. Vide order dated

10.08.2011 appeal preferred by petitioner was dismissed by

learned Additional Sessions Judge.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

petitioner has already deposited the fine of ` 3,000/-.

5. It is argued that since the petitioner has already

remained for 1½ months in custody out of the total sentence

of 04 months, therefore, maintaining the conviction, the

petitioner should be released for the period already

undergone in custody.

6. In view of fact that petitioner is a lady of 57 years, and

has spent 1½ months in custody, I hereby modify the

sentence order dated 17.03.2011 and appellate Court order

dated 10.08.2011 to the extent already undergone.

7. The Jail authorities are directed to release the

petitioner forthwith, if she is not warranted in any other

case.

8. Copy of the order be sent to the Jail Superintendent for

compliance.

9. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Petition No.388/2011

stands partially allowed.

10. In view of above order, Criminal M.B. No.1536/2011

renders infructuous and disposed of.

SURESH KAIT, J

September 22, 2011 Mk