Dalbir Singh vs State (Gnct Of Delhi)
2016 Latest Caselaw 161 Del

$-31
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                  DECIDED ON : 8th JANUARY, 2016

+                        CRL.REV.P. 270/2015

      DALBIR SINGH                                       ..... Petitioner

                         Through :    Mr.S.B.Dandapani, Advocate.


                         versus

      STATE (GNCT OF DELHI)                              ..... Respondent

                         Through :    Mr.Izhar Ahmad, APP.
                                      ASI Shyam Sunder.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.Garg, J. (Oral)

1. Present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner to

challenge the legality and propriety of a judgment dated 31.07.2014 of

learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Crl.A. 08/2014 whereby judgment dated

18.02.2014 of learned Metropolitan Magistrate convicting him under

Sections 279/304A IPC was upheld. The petitioner was sentenced to

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

2. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the

petitioner, on instructions, stated that the petitioner has opted not to

challenge the findings of the Courts below on conviction. He, however,

prayed to release the petitioner for the period already undergone by him

till date as he is not involved in any other criminal case and has served the

sentence for sufficient duration. To this, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor

has no objection.

3. The petitioner was convicted under Sections 279/304A IPC.

Fine is stated to have been deposited in the Court. Nominal Roll dated

14.09.2015 reveals that he has already undergone one year, one month and

eleven days incarceration besides remission for three months and one day

as on 11.09.2015. The said period has since increased and the unexpired

portion of the sentence is about three months. The petitioner is not

involved in any other criminal case and is a first time offender. His

antecedents are clean. His overall jail conduct is satisfactory. He is aged

around 42 years. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,

while maintaining conviction, Sentence Order is modified to the extent

that the period already undergone by him in this case till date shall be

considered as substantive sentence. Other terms and conditions of the

sentence order are left undisturbed.

4. Revision petition stands disposed of in the above terms. Trial

Court record be sent back forthwith with the copy of the order. A copy of

the order be sent to the Superintendent Jail for information.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE

JANUARY 08, 2016 / tr