Delhi District Court
Tabrej Ahmed Telgi vs Cbi on 4 August, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. NARINDER KUMAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (CENTRAL): DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 31/2012
In the matter of:
Tabrej Ahmed Telgi,
S/o Sh. Abdul Azim Telgi,
R/o 1456/A1, Ward No.5,
Vidya Nagar, Station Road,
Khanapur, Belgaun,
Karnataka. .... Appellant
Versus
CBI ......Respondent
Date of Institution: 09.07.2012
Date of Judgment: 04.08.2012
J U D G M E N T
Present appeal has been filed by the accused - appellant from Jail with prayer for extension of the benefit of Sec.428 Cr.P.C. w.e.f.04.01.06 and also for reduction of sentence of fine imposed under various sections.
2. File reveals that the accused - appellant was convicted and sentenced vide order dt.11.06.09 passed by learned ACMM - II (North) Delhi. He was so Crl. Appeal No.31/2012 1 convicted of the offence on his confession of guilt when learned ACMM satisfied him that confession was made by him voluntarily.
3. Appellant could file appeal within a period of 30 days from the order of sentence i.e.11.06.09 but he has also filed this appeal, received in the office of Learned District & Sessions Judge, Delhi on 06.07.2012. Learned counsel from DLSA appearing for the applicant and Special P.P. for CBI have rightly submitted that the appeal is barred by limitation.
4. Even though the appeal is barred by limitation, this court has heard the appellant, learned counsel from DLSA as well as Special P.P. for CBI on the point of concession U/s 428 Cr.P.C.
Having regard to the nature of offences confessed to have been committed by the accused - appellant and the sentence awarded by Learned ACMM to him and his coaccused on their confession of guilt, this court does not find that any concession is called for on the point of Section 428 Cr.P.C.
Learned Special P.P. has rightly referred to decision in Atul Manubhai Parekh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 859, while submitting that the provisions of Sec.428 Cr.P.C. come into application for the purpose of reduction by extent of detention already undergone by a convict during investigation, enquiry and trial of the "same case"
and not in any other case. Therefore, this court does not find any ground to allow prayer of the accused - appellant to consider that the substantive sentence Crl. Appeal No.31/2012 2 awarded by Learned ACMM should have run from the day he was arrested in some other matter.
Be that as it may, the appeal is barred by limitation. Same is hereby dismissed.
Announced in Open Court
on 04.08.2012 (Narinder Kumar )
Additional Sessions Judge(Central)
Delhi.
Crl. Appeal No.31/2012 3