Mahender vs State
2013 Latest Caselaw 1283 Del

$-32
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                       DECIDED ON : 14th March, 2013

+                CRL.A. 127/2005 & CRL.M.B.1833/2006

       MAHENDER                                        ..... Appellant

                           Through :   None.




                           versus

       STATE                                           ..... Respondent

Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.Garg, J. (Open Court)

1. The appellant- Mahender challenges judgment dated

18.12.2004 and order on sentence dated 03.01.2005 in Sessions Case

No.89/2001 arising out of FIR No.281/2001 PS Shalimar Bagh by which

he was convicted for committing offence punishable under Section 397

IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with fine ` 1,000/-. He

was further convicted under Section 25/27 Arms Act and sentenced to

undergo RI for two years with fine ` 500/-.

2. Allegations against the accused were that on 05.05.2001 at

09.20 A.M. at Tikona Park, Pitam Pura, he and his associates- Ramdhani,

Santosh Kumar Aggarwal @ Bhaiya and Pappu robbed complainant-

Khairatilal of his scooter bearing No. DL 1SK 2623 containing ` 60,000/-

. The assailants were armed with weapons. The prosecution examined

eleven witnesses to substantiate the charge. In his 313 statement, the

accused pleaded false implication. On appreciation of the evidence and

considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court, by the

impugned judgment convicted Ramdhani and Mahender under Section

397 IPC. However, Santosh Kumar Aggarwal and Pappu were acquitted

of all the charges. Being aggrieved, Mahender has preferred the appeal.

3. Nominal roll dated 15.02.2007 reveals that the appellant had

already undergone 3 years, 2 months and 26 days incarceration as on

20.02.2007. He also earned remissions for 8 months and 10 days. Vide

order dated 02.05.2012, it was noted that the appellant had already

completed the sentence awarded to him and he has been released from

jail. On 26.07.2012, learned amicus curiae informed the Court that the

appellant was not contacting her and she was not aware about his

whereabouts after release from jail.

4. Since the appellant has already undergone sentence awarded

to him and has not contacted the counsel or has not appeared before the

Court after his release from the jail, it appears that he is not interested in

the prosecution of the appeal. The appeal is dismissed for non

prosecution.

5. Pending application also stands disposed of being

infructuous.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE

MARCH 14, 2013 tr