Full Text
Translation output
CRL.A.11/2019 & connected matters Page 1
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.A. 11/2019 & Crl.M.(B) 18/2019
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.A. 11/2019 & Crl.M.(B) 18/2019
CRL.A. 126/2019 & Crl.M.(B) 224/2019, Crl.M.A. 2633/2019
CRL.A. 163/2019 & Crl.M.(B) 287/2019
SURENDER KUMAR GUPTA RAM KISHAN RAM SWAROOP SINGH .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah & Mr. Siddhant Kaushik, Advocates in Crl.A. 11/2019.
Mr. Amit Khanna, Ms. Preeti Singh & Mr. Pushkar Katyal, Advocates in Crl.A. 126/2019.
Mr. Prashant Mendiratta, Advocate in Crl.A. 163/2019.
SURENDER KUMAR GUPTA RAM KISHAN RAM SWAROOP SINGH .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah & Mr. Siddhant Kaushik, Advocates in Crl.A. 11/2019.
Mr. Amit Khanna, Ms. Preeti Singh & Mr. Pushkar Katyal, Advocates in Crl.A. 126/2019.
Mr. Prashant Mendiratta, Advocate in Crl.A. 163/2019.
VERSUS
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Neelam Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State
Through: Ms. Neelam Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R 03.05.2019
Crl.M.(B) 18/2019 Crl.M.(B) 224/2019 Crl.M.(B) 287/2019
The applications for suspension of sentence of appellants-Surinder
Kumar Gupta, Ram Kishan & Ram Swaroop Narang have been heard.
2019:DHC:2462
Crl.M.(B) 18/2019 Crl.M.(B) 224/2019 Crl.M.(B) 287/2019
The applications for suspension of sentence of appellants-Surinder
Kumar Gupta, Ram Kishan & Ram Swaroop Narang have been heard.
2019:DHC:2462
CRL.A.11/2019 & connected matters Page 2
Appellant-Surinder Kumar Gupta has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of ₹5,00,000/- for the offence under Section 120B of IPC read with Section 409 of IPC and for the allied offences, he has been sentenced to lesser period.
Appellants-Ram Swaroop Narang & Ram Kishan have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years each with fine of
₹10,00,000/- each with default clause and for the allied offences, they have been awarded lesser sentence.
Learned senior counsel for appellants submit that as per the prosecution case, the amount of ₹5,49,51,000/- was embezzled by main accused-Mahender Kumar Gupta, who has expired but before he had expired, amount of ₹6,01,62,000/- approximately was deposited by him in the account of MCD.
It is submitted that appellants-Surender Kumar Gupta, Ram Kishan
& Ram Swaroop Narang have been on bail during the trial and they have a good case of merits. So, it is submitted that the substantive sentence awarded to appellants deserves to be suspended.
On the contrary, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State supports the impugned order and submits that no case for suspension of sentence is made out as the appellants had conspired to commit the offence in question.
Upon considering the merits of this case and the forgery angle involved, I do not find it to be a fit case to suspend the substantive sentence awarded to appellants by trial court.
Accordingly, the applications seeking suspension of sentence are hereby dismissed at this stage.
Appellant-Surinder Kumar Gupta has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of ₹5,00,000/- for the offence under Section 120B of IPC read with Section 409 of IPC and for the allied offences, he has been sentenced to lesser period.
Appellants-Ram Swaroop Narang & Ram Kishan have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years each with fine of
₹10,00,000/- each with default clause and for the allied offences, they have been awarded lesser sentence.
Learned senior counsel for appellants submit that as per the prosecution case, the amount of ₹5,49,51,000/- was embezzled by main accused-Mahender Kumar Gupta, who has expired but before he had expired, amount of ₹6,01,62,000/- approximately was deposited by him in the account of MCD.
It is submitted that appellants-Surender Kumar Gupta, Ram Kishan
& Ram Swaroop Narang have been on bail during the trial and they have a good case of merits. So, it is submitted that the substantive sentence awarded to appellants deserves to be suspended.
On the contrary, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State supports the impugned order and submits that no case for suspension of sentence is made out as the appellants had conspired to commit the offence in question.
Upon considering the merits of this case and the forgery angle involved, I do not find it to be a fit case to suspend the substantive sentence awarded to appellants by trial court.
Accordingly, the applications seeking suspension of sentence are hereby dismissed at this stage.
CRL.A.11/2019 & connected matters Page 3
CRL.A. 11/2019
CRL.A. 126/2019
CRL.A. 163/2019
List in the category of ‘Regulars’ in the week commencing on 14th October, 2019.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MAY 03, 2019 p’ma/v
List in the category of ‘Regulars’ in the week commencing on 14th October, 2019.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MAY 03, 2019 p’ma/v
JUDGMENT