Delhi High Court
Ramesh Wadhera vs State on 16 May, 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2023:DHC:3417
$~71
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 16.05.2023
+ CRL.A. 165/2009 & CRL.M.A 13208/2023
RAMESH WADHERA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Amar Sareen, Mr. Nishant
Pathak & Mr. R.P. Jinsh, Advs.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar,
APP for the State with SI
Sukhbir Singh, P.S. Mandir
Marg, New Delhi.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
JUDGMENT
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J. (ORAL)
CRL.M.A. 13208/2023 (for cancellation of NBW)
1. By way of present application filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.') by the
applicant/appellant seeks cancellation of Non Bailable Warrant
('NBW') issued by this Hon'ble court vide order dated 14.02.2023 in
case FIR bearing no. 342/2000, registered at Police Station Mandir
Marg, New Delhi, for the offences punishable under Section 325 of
Signature Not Verified
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:18.05.2023
20:04:57
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2023:DHC:3417
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') and Section 27/54/59 of the Arms
Act 1959.
2. In view of the reasons stated in the application, the NBWs
issued against the appellants stand cancelled.
CRL.A. 165/2009
3. The present appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C') has been filed by the appellant against the
judgment dated 23.01.2009 and order on sentence dated 29.01.2009
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), New Delhi for
offences punishable under Sections 325/307 of the the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 ('IPC') and Section 27/54/59 of the Arms Act 1959.
4. The present appeal was admitted and sentence of appellant was
suspended vide order dated 24.02.2009 by this Court.
5. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 25.09.2004,
police officials had received a wireless message about firing by some
miscreants at Palika Place, New Delhi. Upon reaching the alleged
spot, complainant/injured had disclosed that he had been working as a
driver for a company for last two years and on 25.09.2004 at about
8:30 pm, he was standing near his parked vehicle at Palika Place when
the owner of a nearby shop i.e., the present appellant came along with
his 3-4 colleagues and had objected to the vehicle parked by him and
they had started beating the complainant. Thereafter, appellants
employer and Manager came to the spot and rescued him from
clutches of the accused persons. It is alleged that accused/applicant
had fired 3-4 rounds from his pistol from which the complainant and
his associates escaped. Furthermore, accused/applicant and other co-
Signature Not Verified
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:18.05.2023
20:04:57
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2023:DHC:3417
accused persons absconded from the spot in a car. Therefore, present
FIR was registered.
6. The learned Trial Court, vide judgment dated 23.01.2009
convicted the appellant only under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced
him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of
Rs.5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three months.
7. At the outset, learned counsel for appellant, upon instructions,
submits that the appellant does not propose to assail the impugned
judgment on merits and would like to confine the submissions this
appeal, to the point of sentence alone. It is stated that since the
incident is the present case in 19 years old, the sentence of the
appellants be reduced to the period already undergone by him, and no
purpose would be served by sending the appellant to the jail at this
point of time.
8. Learned APP for State has argued to the contrary.
9. This Court has heard the parties and perused the material on
record.
10. As per the nominal roll, the appellant had remained in judicial
custody for 3 months 4 days. The incident in present case pertains to
the year 2004, and the appellant has faced the trial for almost 19 years.
The investigation officer states that the appellant is not involved in
any other criminal case. It is also stated that after he was convicted
and sentenced in the present case, he has contributed positively to the
society. The conduct of the appellant during the period of judicial
custody has been reported to be satisfactory, as per nominal roll.
Signature Not Verified
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:18.05.2023
20:04:57
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2023:DHC:3417
11. It is also not the case that the appellant had misused the liberty
of bail granted to him either during the period of trial or during the
pendency of the present appeal.
12. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by
requiring the appellant to undergo the remaining portion of sentence at
this belated stage, when the appellant has faced trial for almost 19
years, and is today, earning for himself looking after his family.
13. Thus, in view of the aforementioned circumstances, this Court,
though not interfering with the conviction of the appellant, reduces the
sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the
appellant.
14. Accordingly, the present appeal stands disposed of in above
terms.
15. Bail bond stands cancelled and the surety stands discharged.
16. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
MAY 16, 2023/kss
Signature Not Verified
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:18.05.2023
20:04:57
