Delhi High Court
Mohd. Ibrahim vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 12 July, 2012
Author: V.K.Shali
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.585 OF 2010 &
CRIMINAL M. (BAIL) NOS.684 OF 2010, 1973 OF 2011
Decided on : 12th July , 2012
MOHD. IBRAHIM ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Vishal Sehijpal, proxy counsel
for the appellant.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Manoj Pant, proxy counsel for
the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the
judgment and order dated 27.1.2010 and 30.1.2010
respectively passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge
(Fast Track Court) in FIR No.402/2001, registered at Police
Station Vasant Kunj holding the appellant guilty for an offence
under Sections 395/398/34 IPC. So far as the offence under
Section 395 IPC is concerned, the appellant was sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years and four
months apart from a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, simple imprisonment for six months. Similar
sentence was also imposed for an offence under Section 398
IPC, although no separate fine was imposed.
2. The appellant has sent an application from the jail being
Criminal M.A. No.1973 of 2011, which is forwarded by the
Superintendent, Central Jail vide letter No.F.5/SCJ-
5/ASCT/CEN.JAIL/2011/6516 dated 21.10.2011 to the court to
the effect that the appellant does not intend to assail his
conviction on merits, in case, he is sentenced to the period
already undergone. The nominal roll of the appellant was
called last year and it showed that as on 21.10.2011, the
appellant had already undergone a sentence of six years nine
months and 22 days including the period of his incarceration
during the trial. The remaining period of sentence which was
shown unexpired was to the tune of one year on 21.10.2011.
Now, almost eight months have lapsed and as on date, if
calculated on that basis of that information, the appellant has
undergone more than eight years and twenty days' sentence
while as the remaining sentence is only to the tune of three
months and ten days.
3. I feel that the application for being released on the
period already undergone by him, subject to his not
challenging the merits of the judgment passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, should be accepted. I, accordingly, accept the
plea of the appellant and reduce the sentence from a period of
eight years four months and a fine of Rs.2,000/- to only a
period of eight years on both the counts, that is, under
Sections 395 and 398 IPC. So far as the fine amount of
Rs.2,000/- is concerned, that is set aside. Since, the appellant
has already undergone the aforesaid period of incarceration,
therefore, the appellant, if is not involved and required in any
other case, be set free.
4. With these directions, the appeal stands accepted
partially so far as the question of sentence is concerned.
5. A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent,
Central Jail, Tihar for compliance.
V.K. SHALI, J.
JULY 12, 2012
'AA'
