CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2005) 09 DEL CK 0019

B.K. Bansal vs Enforcement Directorate

Delhi High Court · Decided on 22 September 2005 · Citation: (2005) 124 DLT 396 : (2005) 84 DRJ 515

HON’BLE JUDGES
R.S. Sodhi, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Rev.P. 783 of 2002

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 361 words

R.S. Sodhi, J.—The matter was adjourned vide Order dated 21st September, 2005, to enable Counsel for the Respondent-Enforcement Directorate to make his submissions.

2.

This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 19th September, 2002, of the Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 12/2002 ,which appeal was directed against the judgment dated 29th May, 2002 and order on sentence dated 1st June, 2002, whereby the Petitioner was convicted u/s 56 of the Foreign exchange Regulation Act and was sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The Additional Sessions Judge vide his judgment dated 19th September, 2002, while upholding the order of conviction, modified the sentence of imprisonment of the Petitioner to six months.

3.

Counsel for the Petitioner submits that he does not wish to challenge the conviction on merits but confines his arguments only to the question of sentence. He submits that the Petitioner has already undergone the ordeal of trial for more than 18 years. The Petitioner has lost his job and also lost the pensionary benefits which amount to Rs. 5 to 6 lakhs. The Petitioner has also undergone imprisonment and that he has been on bail since 1983 and that no useful purpose would be served in requiring the Petitioner, who is nearly 62 years of age, to undergo the remaining portion of his sentence at this stage. Counsel submits that the Petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as fine.

4.

Counsel for the Respondent-Enforcement Directorate has no objection if the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone.

5.

Having heard learned Counsel for the Parties, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone. I, Therefore, while upholding the order of conviction, reduced the sentence of imprisonment of the Petitioner to the period already undergone.

6.

With this modification, Crl.Rev.P. No.783/2002 is disposed of. The Petitioner is on bail. His bail bond and the surety shall stand discharged.