Delhi High Court
Narender Mahendru vs The State Nct Of Delhi on 4 August, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
$~R-205
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: August 04, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. 2231/2014
NARENDER MAHENDRU ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. K.K. Manan, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Aashish George and Mr.
Puneet Singh Dhir, Advocates
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Shamsudeen
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Vide impugned judgment of 5th January, 2013 petitioner herein has
been convicted for the offence under Sections 201/212 of IPC and vide
order of 23rd January, 2013 he has been sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for one month and fifteen days with fine of `100/- each for
the offence under Section 201 of IPC as well as Section 212 of IPC. In
default of payment of fine, petitioner has been directed to further undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of fifty days. Both the sentences have
been directed to run concurrently.
Aforesaid order was unsuccessfully challenged by way of a
criminal revision petition and vide order of 7th May, 2015 the revisional
CRL.M.C. 2231/2014 Page 1
court has upheld the order of the trial court while reducing the period of
simple imprisonment in default of payment of fine from 50 days to 10
days.
At the hearing, learned senior counsel for petitioner submitted that
petitioner has already faced the agony of these proceedings for the last 16
years and has remained behind bars in this case for 3-4 days and that
petitioner has clean antecedents and no other criminal case is pending
against him except the present one. It was further submitted by learned
senior counsel for petitioner that petitioner is a senior citizen aged 68
years and is suffering from various old-age ailments and that no fruitful
purpose would be served in sending petitioner behind bars as he has
already faced the agony of these proceedings for more than sixteen years
and so, a lenient view deserves to be taken and the ends of justice would
be met if petitioner is released on probation.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State
supported the impugned judgment and submitted that there is no illegality
or infirmity in it.
Upon hearing both the sides and on perusal of the impugned
judgment, I do not find any merits in this petition except in the plea for
probation urged on behalf of petitioner. As such, in the facts and
circumstances of this case and considering the fact that petitioner has
clean antecedents and has faced the agony of these proceedings for more
than sixteen years and is a senior citizen, who is suffering from old-age
ailments, I find no good reason to deny the benefit of probation to
petitioner as after sixteen years of prolonged proceedings, no fruitful
purpose would be served in sending petitioner behind bars. Ends of
CRL.M.C. 2231/2014 Page 2
justice would meet if the sentence of fine is suitably enhanced to `
11,000/- and converted into costs. Accordingly, petitioner is granted
probation upon his furnishing probation bond in the sum of `20,000/- for
six months with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of
trial court and depositing the costs of `11,000/- (after adjusting the
amount already deposited, if any with PM Relief Fund) within a week
from today.
Upon completion of period of probation of six months, a report be
submitted by the Probation Officer to the trial court. In case petitioner
fails to successfully complete the probation for a period of six months, he
shall be then liable to undergo appropriate sentence.
Trial court be apprised of this order forthwith.
This petition is accordingly disposed of in aforesaid terms.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
AUGUST 04, 2015
s
CRL.M.C. 2231/2014 Page 3
