CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2005) 07 DEL CK 0108

R.K. Tripathi vs Madan Mohan and Another

Delhi High Court · Decided on 25 July 2005 · Citation: (2005) 122 DLT 176 : (2005) 83 DRJ 125

HON’BLE JUDGES
R.S. Sodhi, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision Petition 671 of 2004 and Criminal M.A. 4557 of 2005

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

4 paragraphs · 340 words

R.S. Sodhi, J.—This Revision Petition is directed against the judgment dated 28th September, 2004, of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in C.A.No. 10/2004, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal by giving observation that there is no infirmity in the Judgment and Order dated 9th March, 2004, of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in proceedings arising u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2.

Counsel for the Petitioner submits that he is not challenging the order on conviction, but confines his arguments only to the question of sentence. He submits that the Petitioner has already undergone seven months out of the one year RI imposed upon him for offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He further submits that the fine of Rs.5000/- has also been paid to the complainant. He also submits that the Petitioner was admitted to bail vide Order dated 3rd May, 2005 and there has been no complaint about him having belied the trust bestowed upon him by this Court. Counsel submits that no useful purpose would be served in requiring the Petitioner to undergo remaining portion of his sentence of imprisonment at this belated stage and that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone.

3.

Heard Counsel for the Petitioner and have gone through the judgment under challenge. In view of the fact that the Petitioner has already undergone seven months imprisonment and has also paid fine of Rs.5000/- together with the entire cheque amount, I see no purpose in requiring the Petitioner to undergo the remaining portion of his sentence. Since the Petitioner has already been admitted to bail by this Court, the sentence of imprisonment already undergone would be proper in the facts and circumstances of this case. Accordingly, I uphold the order on conviction but modify the order on sentence to the period already undergone.

4.

With this, Crl.Rev.P.671/2004 stands disposed of. Crl.M.A.4557/2005 also stands disposed of. Petitioner is on bail. His bail bonds and surety shall stand discharged.