Mohd. Ali Vs. State

Mohd. Ali vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Jul 23, 2001

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/709701

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/709701
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: R.S. Sodhi, J.
Decided On: Jul 23, 2001
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 1995
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 366--Reduction of sentence--Appellant guilty u/s. 366, IPC--Already undergone in custody, undergone ordeal of trial for nearly 13 years--Has been on bail since 21.2.1995 and no complaint about his having belied the trust bestowed upon him by the Court--Not previous convict, therefor...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 366

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mohd. Ali

Advocate K.B. Andley, Sr. Adv. and; Roopesh Sharma, Adv

Respondent

State

Advocate U.L. Watwani, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 366
Reported In: 2001(60)DRJ351

Excerpt

indian penal code, 1860 - section 366--reduction of sentence--appellant guilty u/s. 366, ipc--already undergone in custody, undergone ordeal of trial for nearly 13 years--has been on bail since 21.2.1995 and no complaint about his having belied the trust bestowed upon him by the court--not previous convict, thereforee, no useful purpose would be served in requiring him to undergo remaining sentence--no objection by respondent if sentence of appellant is reduced--sentence reduced to that already undergone. - r.s. sodhi, j.1. this criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 3.2.1995 of the learned additional sessions judge in sessions case no. 192/1994 whereby the learned additional sessions judge held the appellant guilty under section 366 ipc and further by a separate order of the same date sentenced the appellant-accused to undergo r.i. for five years with a fine of rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo r.i. for three months. 2. learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, does not challenge the order of conviction but confines his arguments to the question of sentence only. he submits that the sentence undergone would suffice for the reasons that the case relates to29.10.1988 and the appellant has already undergone some time in custody. he has undergone the ordeal of trial for nearly 13 years. he submits that the accused has been on bail since 21.2.1995 and that there has been no complaint about his having belied the trust bestowed upon him by this court. he submits that the appellant is also not a previous convict and has by now assimilated in the mainstream of society as a useful citizen, thereforee, 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 the appellant is reduced to that already undergone.3. having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, i am of the opinion that the order of conviction cannot be faulted with but sentence can be reduced. in this view of the matter, while upholding the order of conviction, i reduce the sentence to that already undergone. 4. crl.a.41/1995 is disposed of.5. the appellant is on bail. his bail bond and sureties shall stand discharged.

Full Judgment

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 3.2.1995 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 192/1994 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty under Section 366 IPC and further by a separate Order of the same date sentenced the appellant-accused to undergo R.I. for five years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for three months.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, does not challenge the Order of conviction but confines his arguments to the question of sentence only. He submits that the sentence undergone would suffice for the reasons that the case relates to29.10.1988 and the appellant has already undergone some time in custody. He has undergone the ordeal of trial for nearly 13 years. He submits that the accused has been on bail since 21.2.1995 and that there has been no complaint about his having belied the trust bestowed upon him by this Court. He submits that the appellant is also not a previous convict and has by now assimilated in the mainstream of society as a useful citizen, thereforee, 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 the appellant is reduced to that already undergone.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, I am of the opinion that the order of conviction cannot be faulted with but sentence can be reduced. In this view of the matter, while upholding the order of conviction, I reduce the sentence to that already undergone.

4. Crl.A.41/1995 is disposed of.

5. The appellant is on bail. His bail bond and sureties shall stand discharged.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2001 Same Parties Mohd. Ali vs State Same Subject Criminal Same Judge R.S. Sodhi, J. Acts & Sections Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 366

Criminal