Full Text
Translation output
I
•>
$-43 & 22 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.REV.P. 746/2015
FATEH SINGH NEGI
Petitioner
Through: Mr. K.B. Upadhyay, Advocate
•>
$-43 & 22 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.REV.P. 746/2015
FATEH SINGH NEGI
Petitioner
Through: Mr. K.B. Upadhyay, Advocate
VERSUS
THE STATE ( GOVT OF NCT DELHI) & ANR Respondent
Through: Mr. M.S.Oberoi, Additional Public r Prosecutor for the State
Through: Mr. M.S.Oberoi, Additional Public r Prosecutor for the State
CRL.REV.P. 747/2015
EATEH SINGH NEGI
Petitioner
Through: Mr. K.B. Upadhyay, Advocate
EATEH SINGH NEGI
Petitioner
Through: Mr. K.B. Upadhyay, Advocate
VERSUS
THE STATE ( GOVT OF NCT DELHI) & ANR Respondent
Through: Mr. M.S.Oberoi, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
Through: Mr. M.S.Oberoi, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
CORAM:
^ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
26.07.2016 A..
^ Crl.
M.A. No. 16887/2015 (condonation of delay of 751 days) in
Crl. Rey. P. No. 746/2015 Crl.
M.A. No. 16891/2015 (condonation of delay of 751 days) in
Crl. Rey. P. No. 747/2015.
By these applications, petitioner seeks condonation of delay of
751 days in filing the accompanying revision petitions against the
2016:DHC:9168 order dated 31.07.2013 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in Appeal No.2/12 and 3/12.
While going through the contents of the petition, it is revealed that the petitioner had preferred the appeal against the order dated
18.07.2012, whereby the petitioner was convicted for committing offence punishable under Section 138/142 of Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881 and the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated
31.07.2013, hM passed an order for release of the petitioner on r probation ofone year.
This Court observes that the petitioner has filed the present revision petition just to avoid the payment of fine and compensation to the respondent and that too after a lapse of 751days and the probation period of one year has already been completed. In the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay of 751 days in preferring the present revision petition.
Accordingly the application is dismissed being without merit.
Crl. Rev. P. No. 746/2015 & CrI. Rev. P. No. 747/2015.
Since the application for seeking condonation of delay in preferring the present petitions have been dismissed being without merit, therefore the present revision petitions are also dismissed and disposed of as such. r
JULY 26,2016 pkb 2016:DHC:9168
26.07.2016 A..
^ Crl.
M.A. No. 16887/2015 (condonation of delay of 751 days) in
Crl. Rey. P. No. 746/2015 Crl.
M.A. No. 16891/2015 (condonation of delay of 751 days) in
Crl. Rey. P. No. 747/2015.
By these applications, petitioner seeks condonation of delay of
751 days in filing the accompanying revision petitions against the
2016:DHC:9168 order dated 31.07.2013 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in Appeal No.2/12 and 3/12.
While going through the contents of the petition, it is revealed that the petitioner had preferred the appeal against the order dated
18.07.2012, whereby the petitioner was convicted for committing offence punishable under Section 138/142 of Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881 and the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated
31.07.2013, hM passed an order for release of the petitioner on r probation ofone year.
This Court observes that the petitioner has filed the present revision petition just to avoid the payment of fine and compensation to the respondent and that too after a lapse of 751days and the probation period of one year has already been completed. In the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay of 751 days in preferring the present revision petition.
Accordingly the application is dismissed being without merit.
Crl. Rev. P. No. 746/2015 & CrI. Rev. P. No. 747/2015.
Since the application for seeking condonation of delay in preferring the present petitions have been dismissed being without merit, therefore the present revision petitions are also dismissed and disposed of as such. r
JULY 26,2016 pkb 2016:DHC:9168
JUDGMENT