Full Text
Translation output
\ $-32 HIGH COURT OF DELHI CRL.REV.P. 486/13 & Crl.M.A. 12969/13 & Crl.M.(B) 1740/13
MS. PRAMILA @ AARTI Petitioner
Through: Mr. U.K. Shandilya, Advocate
MS. PRAMILA @ AARTI Petitioner
Through: Mr. U.K. Shandilya, Advocate
VERSUS
DEVENDER KUMAR & ANR Respondents
Through: Ms.Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State
Mr. R.R. Jha, Advocate with Respondent No. 1 in person
Through: Ms.Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State
Mr. R.R. Jha, Advocate with Respondent No. 1 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
02.09.2013 Impugned
02.09.2013 Impugned
ORDER
of August, 2013 upholds petitioner's conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 138 of The
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
At the outset, learned counsel for petitioner does not contest this petition on merits and rightly so, as impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. On the quantum of sentence, it is submitted that the offence in question has been compounded with
Respondent No.l, who is complainant and attention of this Court is drawn to the Affidavit of24'^ August, 2013 ofRespondent No.l filed in support ofthis petition.
Notice.
Ld. Counsel for Respondent No.l accepts notice and submits that
CRL.REV.P. 486/13 ^ Page 1 2013:DHC:8486 respondent No.l, present in the Court, is the complainant. Respondent
No.l affirms the contents of his affidavit of 24"^ August, 2013 filed in support of this petition and he submits that he has received the settled amount of ?1.75 lac only as petitioner is a poor widow who alone has to support her family. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since August, 2013.
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the substantive sentence awarded to petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by her and the sentence of fme/compensation is reduced to ?1.75 lac, which respondent No.l has already received as compensation.
Petitioner is stated to be in custody. She be released forthwith ifnot wanted in any other case.
This petition and the applications are disposed of in aforesaid terms.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge SEPTEMBER 02,2013 s CRL.REVP. 486/13 Page 2 .
2013:DHC:8486
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
At the outset, learned counsel for petitioner does not contest this petition on merits and rightly so, as impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. On the quantum of sentence, it is submitted that the offence in question has been compounded with
Respondent No.l, who is complainant and attention of this Court is drawn to the Affidavit of24'^ August, 2013 ofRespondent No.l filed in support ofthis petition.
Notice.
Ld. Counsel for Respondent No.l accepts notice and submits that
CRL.REV.P. 486/13 ^ Page 1 2013:DHC:8486 respondent No.l, present in the Court, is the complainant. Respondent
No.l affirms the contents of his affidavit of 24"^ August, 2013 filed in support of this petition and he submits that he has received the settled amount of ?1.75 lac only as petitioner is a poor widow who alone has to support her family. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since August, 2013.
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the substantive sentence awarded to petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by her and the sentence of fme/compensation is reduced to ?1.75 lac, which respondent No.l has already received as compensation.
Petitioner is stated to be in custody. She be released forthwith ifnot wanted in any other case.
This petition and the applications are disposed of in aforesaid terms.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge SEPTEMBER 02,2013 s CRL.REVP. 486/13 Page 2 .
2013:DHC:8486