Satbir Singh & Ors vs State
2012 Latest Caselaw 1953 Del

     $~22

     *           THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

     +                    CRL.REV.P. 59/2005

                                           Date of Decision: 21.03.2012

     SATBIR SINGH & ORS                            ..... Petitioner

                          Through:     Mr.Vishwa Nath Gupta,
                                       Advocate.


                          Versus


     STATE                                       ..... Respondent

                          Through:     Ms.Fizani Husain, APP.

     CORAM:
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

     M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)

1. This is a criminal revision petition under Section 397 CrPC for setting aside the order dated 20.1.2005 of learned ASJ, dismissing the criminal appeal filed by the petitioners against the order of conviction and sentence of M.M. dated 5.4.2003 & 31.5.2003 under Sections 323/325/506/34 IPC.

2. All the petitioners/revisionists were convicted thereunder and sentenced to RI for one year. They were also directed to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- each under Section 323 IPC and Rs. 5000/- each under

Section 325 and 506 IPC. The fine is reported to have been deposited.

3. Notice was issued to the complainant, which has been returned with the report of his being not available at the given address and having left to some unknown place.

4. The impugned judgment is assailed on various grounds, but during the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has confined his arguments only to the quantum of sentence. It is stated that the petitioners have remained in Judicial Custody for about 70 days.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and APP and also perused the record. The case is of year 1993 and the petitioners have already undergone not only Judicial Custody of 70 days, but the agony of trial as also the appeal and the present proceedings for about 18 years. The petitioners are first time convicts and they are also reported to be doing businesses from their shops. Having regard to the entire factual matrix, I deem it a fit case to sentence them for the period already undergone, but to increase the fines to Rs. 6000/- each under Section 323 IPC and Rs. 15,000/- each under Sections 325 and 506 IPC, meaning thereby that each of the petitioners will have to pay additional fine of Rs. 25,000/- under all these heads. Petitioners to deposit the same within four weeks. In default of payment of fine, they will undergo RI for three months each under Section 323 IPC and six months each under Sections 325

and 506 IPC. Thus, while maintaining the order of conviction of MM and the ASJ, the order of sentence is modified and they are sentenced to the period already undergone and to pay fines, as indicated above.

6. Revision petition stands disposed of.

7. Dasti.

M.L. MEHTA, J MARCH 21, 2012 akb