Reached Daily Limit?

Explore a new way of legal research!

Click Here
Delhi High CourtIndian Cases

Mukesh Kumar vs State on 13 May 2004

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Delhi High Court
Mukesh Kumar vs State on 13 May, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004CRILJ3830, 112(2004)DLT49, 2004(75)DRJ787
Author: R.S. Sodhi
Bench: R.S. Sodhi
JUDGMENT

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1 .This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.8.2003 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissing Crl. A. No. 172/2003 arising out of the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, whereby the learned Magistrate held the petitioner and the co-accused guilty under Sections 279/304A, IPC and further vide separate order sentenced him to undergo RI for one year for offence under Section 304A, IPC and also sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for offence under Section 279, IPC.

2. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State, I have gone through the record of the case as also the depositions and the judgment under challenge. Learned Counsel states that he is not in a position to challenge the order of conviction. I, therefore, confirm the order of conviction. However, on the question of sentence, it is argued by the learned Counsel that the petitioner has already undergone major portion of his sentence and the remaining unexpired portion of sentence of imprisonment as per the nominal roll is only 23 days. He submits that the occurrence is of 1996 and the petitioner has already suffered the ordeal of trial for more than seven years. He further submits that the petitioner is also not a previous convict and that no useful purpose would be served in requiring him to undergo the remaining portion of his sentence at this belated stage. Learned Counsel for the State has no objection if the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to that already undergone.

3. Having heard learned Counsels for the parties and in view of what has been stated by learned Counsel for the State, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to that already undergone. I order accordingly.

4. With this modification, Crl. Rev. P. 680/2003 is disposed of. Crl. M. A. 1201/2003 also stands disposed of. The petitioner is in judicial custody. He shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. This order be communicated to the jail authorities.