Full Text
Date of Order: January 07, 2019
SANJEEV JAIN & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vijay Dutt & Mr. Surya Prakash Rana, Advocates
Through: Ms. Neelam Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State with
ASI Jai Bhagwan
Crl.M.A. 20/2019 Delay of 76 days in re-filing the petition is condoned for the reasons stated in the application.
Application is disposed of.
Crl.M.A. 19/2019 There is delay of 11 days in filing the accompanying petition.
Upon hearing, I find that sufficient cause is shown to condone the delay occasioned. The application is allowed and delay is condoned.
The application is disposed of.
Crl.M.A. 18/2019 Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
2019:DHC:39 Crl.Rev.P.18/2019
JUDGMENT
1. In this petition, the challenge is to the concurrent findings of the courts below regarding conviction and sentence of petitioners for the offence under Sections 411/120-B IPC. Petitioners have been sentenced to the period already undergone by them.
2. Petitioners’ counsel submits that the fine imposed has already been deposited. It is submitted that there is delay of 19 days in lodging of the FIR and the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 have not been complied with and no independent witnesses are coming forth to depose about this incident. It is submitted by petitioners’ counsel that there is no evidence on record to connect petitioners with the mobile phone in question. Thus, acquittal of petitioners is sought in this petition.
3. Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent- State submits that wife of complainant (PW-1) has supported the prosecution case and she has identified the mobile phone in question.
4. Upon hearing, I find no illegality or infirmity in the concurrent findings returned by the courts below. The conviction and sentence awarded to petitioners is just and appropriate.
5. With aforesaid observations, this petition is accordingly dismissed.
JUDGE JANUARY 07, 2019 r