Full Text
Translation output
LI.
$'-'41.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(CRL) 1604/2013
Petitioner D R I Through: Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Advocate with
Mr. AmriSh AggarWal, Advocate
$'-'41.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(CRL) 1604/2013
Petitioner D R I Through: Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Advocate with
Mr. AmriSh AggarWal, Advocate
VERSUS
SANJEEV ARORA & ANR Respondents
Through: None
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
27.09.2013 1.
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner/DR1 under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Section
482 Cr.PC praying inter a/ia for enhancing the sentence imposed on the respondents in CC NO-1/98 entitled
2.
Counsel for the petitioner/DR1 fairly concedes that though a remedy of appeal has been provided under Section 377 (2) of the
Cr.PC, the petitioner/DR1 has filed the present petition for enhancement of the sentence against the respondents.
3.
The Court has perused the provisions of Section 377 (2) of the
Cr.PC that contemplates that if a conviction has taken place in a case where the offence has been investigated by an agency empowered to
W.P.(CRL) 160412013 2013:DHC:7529 make investigation into an offence under the Central Act, then the
Central Government may direct the Public Prosecutor to prefer an appeal against the inadequacy of the sentence to the Appellate Court.
4.
In view of the fact that the petitioner/DR1 has an equally alternate efficacious remedy available, the Court declines to entertain the present petition while granting leave to the petitioner/DRI to seek its remedies as are available to it in law.
27.09.2013 1.
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner/DR1 under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Section
482 Cr.PC praying inter a/ia for enhancing the sentence imposed on the respondents in CC NO-1/98 entitled
2.
Counsel for the petitioner/DR1 fairly concedes that though a remedy of appeal has been provided under Section 377 (2) of the
Cr.PC, the petitioner/DR1 has filed the present petition for enhancement of the sentence against the respondents.
3.
The Court has perused the provisions of Section 377 (2) of the
Cr.PC that contemplates that if a conviction has taken place in a case where the offence has been investigated by an agency empowered to
W.P.(CRL) 160412013 2013:DHC:7529 make investigation into an offence under the Central Act, then the
Central Government may direct the Public Prosecutor to prefer an appeal against the inadequacy of the sentence to the Appellate Court.
4.
In view of the fact that the petitioner/DR1 has an equally alternate efficacious remedy available, the Court declines to entertain the present petition while granting leave to the petitioner/DRI to seek its remedies as are available to it in law.
ORDER
5. The petition is disposed of. HIMA KOHLI,) SEPTEMBER 27, 2013 rkb W.P.(CRL) 160412013 2013:DHC:7529