Raj Kumar @ Lala v. State NCT of Delhi

ORDER %

15.10.2012

¶1By this common order, I shall dispose of both the revisionpetitions i.e. Crl. Rev.P. Nos.37/2012 and 66/2012 filed by Raj Kumar @ Lala and Bhola @ Sonu respectivelyunder Section397/401 read with Section482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 31.10.2011 passed by the learned ASJ in Crl.AppealNo.21/2011and Crl.A.15/2011 wherebythe appealsfiled by the petitioners against the judgmentdated 10.08.2011 and order on sentence { \ \ /' dated 17.08.2011passed by the learnedM.M were dismissed.

¶2Vide the impugnedjudgment and order on sentence,the petitioners were convictedand sentencedto undergoR.I for a period of three years and fme ofRs.5,000/-and in defaultofpaymentof fine to furtherundergoS.I for aperiodofone monthfor the offenceunderSection392/34. The petitioners challengedtheirconvictionby filingan appealwhichwas also dismissedby the learned ASJ, and the judgmentand order on sentenceawardedby the learned MM was affirmed/upheldby the learned ASJ. Feeling aggrieved with the same, petitionersinvokedthe inherentjurisdictionofthis Courtby filing revision petitions in this Court.

¶3On 04.10.2012, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted on instructions received from the petitioner that the petitioners are not challengingtheir convictionand theyjustpray for takinga lenientview on the point of sentence on parity with co-convictPradeep, who was also chargedfor the same offence.It was further submittedby the counselthat the total amount involved in the offence was Rs.67,000/-,out of which Rs.30,000/- was recovered from the petitioners and they are ready and willing to compensatethe complainantby paying Rs.15,000/- each i.e. a total sum of Rs.30,000/-.

¶4In terms of the said direction, counsel for both the petitioners has broughttodayapay orderfor asum ofRs.30,000/- to be handedoverto the complainant.LearnedAPP for the Stateon instructionsfiromthe I.O submits that due to illnessthecomplainantisunableto cometo collectthe same.But sincethe pay orderis in the nameofthe complainant,itis submittedthatthe same may be handedoverto the 1.0 againstreceiptso that the same can be handed over by the 1.0 to the complainant. I V y

¶5Accordingly,pay orderfor Rs.30,000/-infavourofthe complainantis handedoverto the I.O today in Court.LearnedAPP submitsthat it shallbe handed over by the 1.0 to the complainant.

¶6Nominalrolls'of the petitionershave been received,as per which as on 26.09.2012,the petitionerRaj Kumar @Lalahas undergonesentenceof 1 year, 2 months and 9 days out oftotal sentenceof 3 years awardedto them. The petitionerhas also earned remissionof 4 months and 01 day. Similarly,as on 25.09.2012the petitionerBhola@Sonu has undergonethe sentenceof1yearand 15 days outoftotalsentenceof3yearsRI awardedto him. He has also earned remission of 3 months and 13 days.

¶8Taking into considerationthat co-accused Pradeep who was also convictedin this case by the learnedTrialCourt,but on his pleaofguiltwas sentencedto undergo R.I for a period of one year, while maintainingthe conviction of the petitioners for the offence under Section 392/34, the substantivesentence awarded to the petitionersis reduced to the period already undergone by them in custody in this case. However, so far as sentenceof fine is concerned,the same shall remain unchanged.Both the petitionersbe releasedforthwith,ifnotwantedin any othercase.

¶9Boththe revisionpetitionsstanddisposedofin the aboveterms.Trial Court record be sent back along with a copy of this order.

¶10Acopy ofthis orderbe sentto the concernedJail Superintendentfor necessary compliance. PR^ATIBHA RANITJ OCTOBER 15, 2012 'dc'

$-62 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P. 37/2012 RAJ KUMAR@LALA Petitioner Through: Mr.Sheikh Israr Ahmed, Advocate. versus STATE NOT OF DELHI Respondent Through; Mr.Navin Sharma, APP + CRL.REV.P. 66/2012 BHOLA@SONU Petitioner Through: Mr.Navin Sharma, APP versus STATE NCT OF DELHI Respondent Through:Mr.SheikhIsrar Ahmed,Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI