Delhi High Court
Danish vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 5 February, 2019
$~51
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 05.02.2019
+ CRL.A. 129/2019
DANISH ..... Appellant
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ramesh Saraf, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for the State.
ASI Data Ram, PS Seelampur.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
CRL.A. 129/2019 & Crl.M.(Bail) 228/2019 (for suspension of sentence)
1. Appellant impugns judgment on conviction dated 01.09.2018 and
orders on sentence dated 28.09.2018 and 09.01.2019, whereby, the
appellant has been convicted of an offence under Sections 308 (Part II) read
with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo 2 years rigorous
imprisonment and also convicted of the offence under Sections 323/34 IPC
and sentenced to undergo 6 months imprisonment and to pay fine of
Rs.16,000/-.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that by order on sentence
dated 28.09.2018, the appellant was directed to be released on probation of
good conduct on furnishing a bond of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the
like amount for a period of 2 years. He was also directed to pay Rs.15,000/-
as compensation to the injured and to pay Rs.1,000/- as costs of the
proceedings.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was
granted two months time to pay the said amount.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had
handed over the money to his advocate Mr. V.S. Chauhan for being
deposited in Court, within the period of two months. However, as there
were successive bereavements in the family of Mr. V.S. Chauhan,
Advocate and he lost two of his family members within a span of one
month, the fine amount could not be deposited within time.
5. Because of default in payment of the fine amount, within the time
permitted, the Trial Court by order dated 09.01.2019 recalled the order of
probation dated 28.09.2018 and sentenced the appellant to imprisonment as
noticed above.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the fine has
already been paid and is so noticed in the order dated 09.01.2019.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he has instructions
not to press the appeal on merits in case order dated 28.09.2018 releasing
the appellant on probation is restored.
8. By order dated 28.09.2018, the Trial Court found this case fit for
releasing the appellant on probation, accordingly, directed release of the
appellant on probation and payment of fine.
9. The case of the appellant is that he had paid the fine amount within
the stipulated period to his advocate for being deposited in Court. However,
the fine amount could not be deposited as there were bereavements of two
of the family members of the advocate within a span of one month.
10. In my view, the same constitutes just and sufficient cause for the
appellant for not depositing the fine amount within time. It is not in dispute
that the appellant has furnished the requisite bond in terms of order dated
28.09.2018.
11. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, I
am of the view that the order dated 09.01.2019 insofar as it sentenced the
appellant to imprisonment requires to be quashed.
12. In view of the above, the order dated 09.01.2019 insofar as it
sentenced the appellant to imprisonment is quashed. Order dated
28.09.2018 directing release of the appellant on probation on terms and
conditions mentioned therein is restored.
13. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed in the above terms.
14. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
FEBRUARY 05, 2019 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
st
