Ravinder Chauhan v. State (NCT of Delhi)

1. The appellant was convicted by a judgment dated 09.12.2010 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 51/10 arising out of FIR No. 52/10 PS M.S.Park for committing offences under Sections 367/377 IPC. By an order dated 10.12.2010, the appellant was awarded RI for three years with fine ` 3,000/- under Section 367 IPC and RI for five years with fine ` 4,000/- under Section 377 IPC. Both the sentences were to operate concurrently. 2014:DHC:2558 Crl.A.No.201/2011

2. Appellant’s counsel on instructions has stated that the appellant has opted not to pursue the appeal as he has come out of the jail after completing the sentence awarded. To this, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has no objection.

3. Since the appellant has served the sentence awarded to him and has given up challenge to the findings of the Trial Court and opted not to pursue the appeal on merits, the appeal is dismissed as ‘not pressed’. Trial Court record be sent back forthwith with the copy of the order. The Trial Court shall confirm from the jail authorities if the sentence awarded to the appellant has been served by him in compliance of the sentence order; whether the fine imposed has been paid or the appellant has served default sentence. The Trial Court shall also ensure if the fine amount (if any) recovered from the appellant has been given as token of compensation to the victim.

JUDGE MAY 15, 2014 / tr