Sant Ram vs The State (Nct Of Delhi)
2016 Latest Caselaw 5963 Del

$~17
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                   DECIDED ON : 14th SEPTEMBER, 2016

+       CRL.REV.P.124/2016, CRL.M.B.314/2016, CRL.M.A.Nos.
        2667/2016 & 5904/2016

        SANT RAM                                      ..... Petitioner
                             Through :    Mr.Jivesh Tiwari, Advocate.
                             versus
        THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)                       ..... Respondent
                             Through :    Mr.Kamal K.Ghei, APP.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (Oral)

1. Present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner to challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 04.11.2015 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Crl.A.25/2015 arising out of FIR No.688/2002 registered at PS Kotwali whereby order on conviction and sentence dated 20.06.2015 and 20.07.2015 respectively of learned Metropolitan Magistrate were confirmed. The petitioner was convicted under Sections 279/304A IPC and was sentenced to undergo SI for six months and payment of compensation `30,000/- under Section 304A IPC and SI for two months with fine `1,000/- under Section 279 IPC. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. The petitioner's appeal (Crl.A.25/2015) resulted in its dismissal. Hence, the present petition.

2. Nominal Roll dated 05.04.2016 reveals that the petitioner has served out the sentence awarded to him. As on 05.04.2016, the petitioner had undergone five months and one day incarceration besides remission for twenty-three days. The unexpired portion of the sentence was six days. Nominal Roll further reveals that the compensation of `15,000/- has already been paid in the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner informed that the petitioner has not contacted him since release after completion of sentence awarded to him.

3. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in the prosecution of the present revision petition as it has become infructuous due to completion of the sentence awarded to him. Seemingly, for that reason, the petitioner has not contacted the counsel for disposal of the revision petition on merits.

4. In view of the above, the revision petition is dismissed as infructuous. If the petitioner, however, appears within reasonable time to get the revision petition disposed of on merits, his plea will be considered.

5. Revision petition stands disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications also stand disposed of.

6. Copy of the order be sent to the Court concerned for information.

7. Intimation be sent to the Superintendent Jail.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 / tr