Delhi High Court
Sunny Sethi vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 13 February, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: February 13, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. 370/2015 & Crl.M.A. 1474/2015
SUNNY SETHI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. B.K. Jha, Advocate
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Parveen Bhati, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Gajender Singh
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Vide order of 6th January, 2014 petitioner was released on
probation for the offence under Section 411 of IPC in FIR No.642/2004
registered at P.S. Rajouri Garden, Delhi, subject to petitioner maintaining
the good conduct. After being released on probation, petitioner was
caught in five cases of snatching and out of these five cases, in one case,
he was acquitted and in three cases, he was discharged, but in the fifth
case i.e. FIR No.390/2014 registered at P.S. Tilak Nagar, Delhi for the
offence under Sections 392/34 of IPC, petitioner has not been identified
in the Test Identification Parade. Trial court vide order of 1st August,
2014 has directed petitioner to serve the sentence of rigorous
imprisonment for two years in FIR No.642/2004 on account of his
CRL.M.C. 370/2015 Page 1
breaching the condition of probation i.e. of maintaining good conduct.
Aforesaid order of 1st August, 2014 has been maintained by the
revisional court vide the impugned order of 1st December, 2014. At the
hearing, learned counsel for petitioner had submitted that after trial
court's order of 1st August, 2014, petitioner is behind bars for the last
about nine months and the discharge of petitioner in three cases and
acquittal in the fourth case, does not justify the cancellation of probation
granted to petitioner as even in the fifth case, there are no chances of
petitioner being convicted as in the Test Identification Parade, star
witness of prosecution has not identified petitioner as accused. Thus, it is
prayed that the impugned orders be quashed and petitioner be released
from jail forthwith.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State supports the
impugned order and submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in it.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor asserts that it cannot be presumed
that petitioner would not be convicted in the fifth case for the offence
under Sections 392/34 of IPC, which is a grave offence and so, this
petition deserves to be dismissed.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned orders and the
material on record, I find that petitioner is a graduate and is a middle aged
person, who is said to be dealing in selling of cakes.
During the course of hearing, it was submitted by learned counsel
for petitioner that it is the question of livelihood of petitioner and his
family and so, the sentence of two years awarded for the offence under
Section 411 of IPC deserves to be reduced to the period already
undergone by him as the incident was of the year 2004.
CRL.M.C. 370/2015 Page 2
In the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that
petitioner has already faced the agony of trial and appeal proceedings in
FIR No.642/2004 for the last about one decade and has already remained
behind bars for a period of about nine months and in view of the
background of petitioner, the sentence of two years awarded to petitioner
in FIR No.642/2004 registered at P.S. Rajouri Garden, Delhi is reduced
from two years to one year while maintaining the sentence of fine.
With aforesaid modification, this petition and the application are
disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 13, 2015
s
CRL.M.C. 370/2015 Page 3
