Suresh Kumar Vs. State

Suresh Kumar vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Jul 28, 2005

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/702258

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/702258
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: R.S. Sodhi, J.
Decided On: Jul 28, 2005
Case Number: Crl. Rev. P. 134/2005
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal Procedure Code - Section 397 -- Criminal Revision -- Powers of the High Court -- Conviction -- Sentence -- Reduction -- Fine paid -- Sentence reduced to the period already undergone -- Already suffered rigors of trial for 14 years -- Petition with modification disposed of. -

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Suresh Kumar

Advocate Maldeep Sidhu, Adv

Respondent

State

Advocate V.K. Malik, Adv.

Legal References

Reported In: 123(2005)DLT344; 2005(83)DRJ690

Excerpt

criminal procedure code - section 397 -- criminal revision -- powers of the high court -- conviction -- sentence -- reduction -- fine paid -- sentence reduced to the period already undergone -- already suffered rigors of trial for 14 years -- petition with modification disposed of. - r.s. sodhi, j.1. this revision petition is directed against the judgment of the learned additional sessions judge in cr. appeal no. 64/04, whereby the learned judge has dismissed the appeal, arising out of the judgment and order dated 4.2.2004 and 18.9.2004 respectively passed by the learned metropolitan magistrate, new delhi.2. with the assistance of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the state i have gone through the material on record. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she is not in a position to challenge the order of conviction on merit. i, thereforee, confirm the order of conviction. however, on the question of sentence, it is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the occurrence is of 1991 and the petitioner has already suffered the rigors of trial for over 14 years. she submits that the petitioner has undergone more than half of the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him. she further submits that the fine imposed has already been deposited by the petitioner herein 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 the period already undergone.3. having heard learned counsel 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 the period already undergone. it is ordered accordingly.4. with this modification, criminal revision no. 134/2005 is disposed of. crl.m.b.490/2005 also stands disposed of. the petitioner is in judicial custody. he shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.

Full Judgment

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Cr. Appeal No. 64/04, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal, arising out of the judgment and order dated 4.2.2004 and 18.9.2004 respectively passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi.

2. With the assistance of learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Counsel for the State I have gone through the material on record. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that she is not in a position to challenge the order of conviction on merit. I, thereforee, confirm the order of conviction. However, on the question of sentence, it is argued by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the occurrence is of 1991 and the Petitioner has already suffered the rigors of trial for over 14 years. She submits that the Petitioner has undergone more than half of the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him. She further submits that the fine imposed has already been deposited by the Petitioner herein 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 the period already undergone.

3. Having heard learned Counsel 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 the period already undergone. It is ordered accordingly.

4. With this modification, Criminal Revision No. 134/2005 is disposed of. Crl.M.B.490/2005 also stands disposed of. The Petitioner is in judicial custody. He shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2005 Same Parties Suresh Kumar vs State Same Subject Criminal Same Judge R.S. Sodhi, J.

Criminal