Full Text
Translation output
#31
% 02.08.2011
Present: Mr. Sunil Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. ivir. Pawan Narang, APP for the respondent/State.
+Crl.M.A.No.8955/2011(Exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
CrI.Rev.P. 345/2011 & CrI.M.B. 1317/2011
This is a revision petition against the order of learned Additional
^ Sessions Judge dated 08'^ July, 2011 in Criminal Appeal No. 29/2011 titled
'Nazir Khan Vs. State' whereby, the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and maintained the sentence of 2 years Rl and fine of? 1000/- imposed by learned M.M. for the offence under Section 379 IPG.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned
Additional Sessions Judge has committed a grave error in law by maintaining the sentence awarded by the Magistrate, ignoring the fact
^ that the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for a period of more than 09 months. He is a poor man having responsibility of maintaining his wife and three children. It is submitted that the petitioner has realized his mistake and he intends to mend his ways and prove himself to be a responsible member of the society. Thus, learned counsel has pressed for reduction of sentence.
Learned APP has strongly opposed the revision petition. He submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the plea of
2011:DHC:19849
O) the petitioner for reduction of sentence awarded by the learned Ivj.M. considering that the petitioner is a habitual offender having record of six previous convictions under various provision of law, including a case of robbery.
I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. On perusal of the impugned order of learned ASJ it is clear that the appeal against the quantum of sentence has been dismissed keeping in view that the petitioner is a habitual offender having record of six previous convictions. Thus, I find no legal infirmity in the order of learned Additional
Sessions Judge, which may call for interference by this court in revision.
Revision petition as well as the miscellaneous application is accordingly dismissed.
(AJIT BHARIHOKE)
JUDGE
AUGUST 02, 2011 akb
2011:DHC:19849
% 02.08.2011
Present: Mr. Sunil Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. ivir. Pawan Narang, APP for the respondent/State.
+Crl.M.A.No.8955/2011(Exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
CrI.Rev.P. 345/2011 & CrI.M.B. 1317/2011
This is a revision petition against the order of learned Additional
^ Sessions Judge dated 08'^ July, 2011 in Criminal Appeal No. 29/2011 titled
'Nazir Khan Vs. State' whereby, the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and maintained the sentence of 2 years Rl and fine of? 1000/- imposed by learned M.M. for the offence under Section 379 IPG.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned
Additional Sessions Judge has committed a grave error in law by maintaining the sentence awarded by the Magistrate, ignoring the fact
^ that the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for a period of more than 09 months. He is a poor man having responsibility of maintaining his wife and three children. It is submitted that the petitioner has realized his mistake and he intends to mend his ways and prove himself to be a responsible member of the society. Thus, learned counsel has pressed for reduction of sentence.
Learned APP has strongly opposed the revision petition. He submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the plea of
2011:DHC:19849
O) the petitioner for reduction of sentence awarded by the learned Ivj.M. considering that the petitioner is a habitual offender having record of six previous convictions under various provision of law, including a case of robbery.
I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. On perusal of the impugned order of learned ASJ it is clear that the appeal against the quantum of sentence has been dismissed keeping in view that the petitioner is a habitual offender having record of six previous convictions. Thus, I find no legal infirmity in the order of learned Additional
Sessions Judge, which may call for interference by this court in revision.
Revision petition as well as the miscellaneous application is accordingly dismissed.
(AJIT BHARIHOKE)
JUDGE
AUGUST 02, 2011 akb
2011:DHC:19849
JUDGMENT