Full Text
Translation output
$-19 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.REV.P. 164/2012
PARMESH @ VICKY KUMAR Petitioner
Through: Mr. B.P. Singh, Adv.
CRL.REV.P. 164/2012
PARMESH @ VICKY KUMAR Petitioner
Through: Mr. B.P. Singh, Adv.
VERSUS
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI Respondent
Through: Ms. Fizani Husain, APP with ASI Mangat Ram, P.S. Timarpur.
Through: Ms. Fizani Husain, APP with ASI Mangat Ram, P.S. Timarpur.
AND
$-36
$-36
CRL.REV.P. 165/2012
CHUNNU @ CHUNMUN Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manjeet Kumar, Adv.
CHUNNU @ CHUNMUN Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manjeet Kumar, Adv.
VERSUS
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI Respondent
Through: Ms. Fizani Husain, APP with ASI Mangat Ram, P.S. Timarpur.
Through: Ms. Fizani Husain, APP with ASI Mangat Ram, P.S. Timarpur.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
08.05.2012 Both these petitions are filed assailing the
08.05.2012 Both these petitions are filed assailing the
ORDER
dated 22nd February, 2012 of ASJ passed in appeal against the judgment and order of conviction and
2012:DHC:8908 sentence dated 20th July, 2011 and 28th July, 2011 passed by MM.
Both the petitioners along with co-accused were sent for prosecution in the
FIR No.86/90 P.S. Timarpur under Sections 419/420/468/473/34 IPG. The co-accused, Raj Kumar and Mahavir were acquitted by the Gourt of MM whereas the present petitioners were convicted and sentenced to undergo RJ of one year each under Sections 420 and 468 IPG. In addition, they were also directed to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- each in respect of offences under Sections 420 and 468 IPG. They preferred appeals against the judgment and order of the MM, which came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment ofthe ASJ.
The present petitions are filed against the impugned orders on merits as well as on the ground of the petitioners being juvenile at the time of commission of offence on 22nd May, 1990. It is seen that though the ground of the petitioners being juvenile as alleged was never taken by them before the MM or the Appellate
Court of ASJ, but since the issue regarding the petitioners' juvenility being legal, the same is entertained by this Gourt at this stage. Notice was issued to the State to verify the pleas of the petitioners being juvenile. In response, it has been stated by the State that on verification it is found that the petitioner, Parmesh @ Vicky's date of birth as perceived from his Matriculation certificate was 18th July, 1973, whereas that of Ghunmun was 1st July, 1973 as per the MGD Primary School, Raghubarpura. This was, in fact, in confirmation to the pleas which were taken by the petitioners that they were juveniles at the time of alleged commission of offence on 22nd May, 1990. Taking the date ofbirth ofthe petitioners as given in the status reports to be correct, both the petitioners are found to be juvenile at the time of commission of offence. Ordinarily in a situation like this, the matter ought to have been remanded back to the Trial Court for recording the finding as regard to the age of the petitioners, but having regard to the fact that the State itself on verification has found the petitioners to be juvenile, no purpose will be served for remanding the case back to the Trial Court. Hence, at this stage it is taken that the petitioners were juvenile at the time of commission of offence.
Further, once the petitioners are found to be juvenile, they ought to have been tried as such de novo. With regard to this, it is stated by the counsel for the petitioners that since the petitioners have not disputed their conviction on merit and the notice issued to the State was limited to the question ofjuvenile only, no purpose will be served in de novo trial ofthe petitioners. In other words, it is submitted that since there is no challenge to the findings of the facts on merit and the notice was also issued limited to the question ofthe juvenility ofthe petitioners, no purpose was to be served by de novo trial. I am in agreement with the petitioners. It is seen that on 30th March, 2012 when these petitions were taken up for hearing, it was observed that so far as the merit is concerned, there was no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders and the notice was issued to the State limited to the question ofjuvenility of the petitioners. In view of all this, it is recorded that the petitioners were juvenile at the time of offence, and that so far as the merit is concerned, there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders as the same remain unchallenged. The learned counsel for the petitioners have confined their submissions only to the ground of quantum of sentence. The petitioners have been in JC for about three months now. Having regard to the fact that they are now found to be juveniles at the time of commission of offence, I am of the view that the period already undergone by them would meet the ends ofjustice. Thus, while maintaining the conviction, the order of sentence is modified to the extent that they shall be sentenced for the period already undergone.
The petitions are disposed of accordingly.
Dasti.
M.L. MEHTA,J MAY 08, 2012 (p
2012:DHC:8908 sentence dated 20th July, 2011 and 28th July, 2011 passed by MM.
Both the petitioners along with co-accused were sent for prosecution in the
FIR No.86/90 P.S. Timarpur under Sections 419/420/468/473/34 IPG. The co-accused, Raj Kumar and Mahavir were acquitted by the Gourt of MM whereas the present petitioners were convicted and sentenced to undergo RJ of one year each under Sections 420 and 468 IPG. In addition, they were also directed to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- each in respect of offences under Sections 420 and 468 IPG. They preferred appeals against the judgment and order of the MM, which came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment ofthe ASJ.
The present petitions are filed against the impugned orders on merits as well as on the ground of the petitioners being juvenile at the time of commission of offence on 22nd May, 1990. It is seen that though the ground of the petitioners being juvenile as alleged was never taken by them before the MM or the Appellate
Court of ASJ, but since the issue regarding the petitioners' juvenility being legal, the same is entertained by this Gourt at this stage. Notice was issued to the State to verify the pleas of the petitioners being juvenile. In response, it has been stated by the State that on verification it is found that the petitioner, Parmesh @ Vicky's date of birth as perceived from his Matriculation certificate was 18th July, 1973, whereas that of Ghunmun was 1st July, 1973 as per the MGD Primary School, Raghubarpura. This was, in fact, in confirmation to the pleas which were taken by the petitioners that they were juveniles at the time of alleged commission of offence on 22nd May, 1990. Taking the date ofbirth ofthe petitioners as given in the status reports to be correct, both the petitioners are found to be juvenile at the time of commission of offence. Ordinarily in a situation like this, the matter ought to have been remanded back to the Trial Court for recording the finding as regard to the age of the petitioners, but having regard to the fact that the State itself on verification has found the petitioners to be juvenile, no purpose will be served for remanding the case back to the Trial Court. Hence, at this stage it is taken that the petitioners were juvenile at the time of commission of offence.
Further, once the petitioners are found to be juvenile, they ought to have been tried as such de novo. With regard to this, it is stated by the counsel for the petitioners that since the petitioners have not disputed their conviction on merit and the notice issued to the State was limited to the question ofjuvenile only, no purpose will be served in de novo trial ofthe petitioners. In other words, it is submitted that since there is no challenge to the findings of the facts on merit and the notice was also issued limited to the question ofthe juvenility ofthe petitioners, no purpose was to be served by de novo trial. I am in agreement with the petitioners. It is seen that on 30th March, 2012 when these petitions were taken up for hearing, it was observed that so far as the merit is concerned, there was no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders and the notice was issued to the State limited to the question ofjuvenility of the petitioners. In view of all this, it is recorded that the petitioners were juvenile at the time of offence, and that so far as the merit is concerned, there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders as the same remain unchallenged. The learned counsel for the petitioners have confined their submissions only to the ground of quantum of sentence. The petitioners have been in JC for about three months now. Having regard to the fact that they are now found to be juveniles at the time of commission of offence, I am of the view that the period already undergone by them would meet the ends ofjustice. Thus, while maintaining the conviction, the order of sentence is modified to the extent that they shall be sentenced for the period already undergone.
The petitions are disposed of accordingly.
Dasti.
M.L. MEHTA,J MAY 08, 2012 (p