Delhi High Court
Ramesh Chand vs State Of The Nct Of Delhi on 10 October, 2013
Author: G. S. Sistani
$~ 4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.A. 1259/2013
% Judgment dated 10.10.2013
RAMESH CHAND ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Neeraj K. Sharma, Advocate
versus
STATE OF THE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Firoz Khan Ghazi, Advocate for State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
Crl.M.A.No.15040/2013 (DELAY)
1. By the present application, appellant prays for condonation of 80 days‟
delay in filing the present appeal.
2. Notice. Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is
allowed. Delay in filing the present appeal is condoned.
3. Application stands disposed of.
CRL.A.1259/2013
4. By the present appeal, appellant has challenged the judgment dated
8.5.2013 and order on sentence dated 9.5.2013, by which the appellant has
been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two
years under sections 328/379/420/468/471 IPC and also to pay fine of
Rs.1,00,000/-.
5. The case of the prosecution, as set out by the learned trial court is as
under:
"2. The case of the prosecution is that on 05.10.2011, a
complaint was lodged by Sh.Lekh Raj (PW-1) vide diary
no.1196/LC dated 05.10.2011 against accused Ramesh
Chand regarding theft of his gold jewellery, documents and
cash that was received by SI Neeraj Kumar (PW-12); that on
the said complaint, an inquiry was being conducted and it
was on 07.01.2012 that complainant Sh.Lekh Raj again came
to the Police Station and gave a statement to the effect that
"He retired from MTNL from the post of Phone Mechanic
and prior to his retirement on 30.10.2011 he was working at
the MTNL office, Exchange Building near Fire Station,
Connaught Place when at about 2:00 pm accused Ramesh
Chand met him who came to know that the complainant had
to fill up a „loan form‟ with the MTNL Society located at
Khurshid Lal Bhawan and on that accused told him that he
had some acquaintance over there and would get his work
done and at about 3 pm they reached Khurshid Lal Bhawan,
Conncuaght Place where accused left him on the ground
floor taking away his documents and came back after an
hour; that the accused made him sniff something as a result
of which he became unconscious; that when he re-gained his
consciousness he found that his black bag containing
Rs.30,000/- besides a small purse containing his I card, one
metro cards, photographs, mobile phone with SIM
no.9810199515, office keys besides keys of his residence,
one index diary, society passbook and one cheque book of
his banker VIjaya Bank, Hauz Khas besides gold ring with
pukhraj, gold chain weighing 20 gms, one gold kara
weighing 30 grms were missing; that he lodged a complaint
with PS Barakhamba Road and now he found that accused
Ramesh Chand used his cheque books and withdrew
Rs.10,000/- vide cheque no.114993 and Rs.25,000/- vide
cheque no.114995 from account no.601501010007127.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that at the instance of
complainant Sh.Lekh Raj (PW-1), accused was apprehended
from his residence on 07.01.2012 and at the instance of the
accused several stolen documents were seized from the
residence; that during the investigation the specimen
signatures/ handwriting of the accused were obtained after
taking permission from the Court and the same were sent to
CFSL alongwith the documents / cheque books etc. procured
from Vijaya Bank, Hauz Khas besides Central Bank of India,
Nayabas, Noida."
6. After completion of investigation the charge sheet was filed against the
accused and the accused was charged separately for committing offence
u/s.328/379/420/467/478/471 IPC and held guilty. The prosecution in
order to prove its case has examined 15 witnesses.
7. Counsel for the appellant at the outset submits that appellant does not
wish to challenge the judgment on merits. Counsel also submits that out
of the sentence of 2 years awarded by the trial court, appellant has already
undergone more than one year and seven months of imprisonment and
fine of Rs.1.0 lac has since been deposited. Counsel accordingly, prays
that the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone, as the
appellant has clean antecedents and this is the first offence of the
appellant; he is the sole bread-winner of his family and he has to support
his wife and three children.
8. Counsel for the State submits that there is no reason to modify the order
of learned trial court and the appellant should complete the sentence
which has been awarded to him.
9. I have heard counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions
and also considered the evidence placed on record. The judgment of the
trial court is upheld, however, taking into consideration that the appellant
has already undergone more than one year and seven months of
imprisonment and he has also paid a fine of Rs.1.0 lac, which has been
awarded to him and also taking into consideration that the appellant is the
sole bread-winner of the family, he has to support his wife and children,
the order on sentence is modified to the period already undergone. The
bail bond stands cancelled and the surety stand discharged.
10. Appeal stands disposed of, in above terms.
Crl.M.B.1982/2013
11. In view of the order passed in the appeal, present application stands
disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J
OCTOBER 10, 2013
ssn
