Delhi High Court - Orders
Amir vs State Of Delhi on 29 October, 2025
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
$~55
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 1707/2024
AMIR .....Petitioner
Through: Mohd. Shamikh, Advocate.
versus
STATE OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Rahul Tyagi, ASC for State.
Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC, Ms. Ayushi
Srivastava, Adv, Mr. Ayush Tanwar,
Adv, Mr. Arpan Narwal, Adv, Mr.
Kushagra Malik, Advocate for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
ORDER
% 29.10.2025
1. A Writ Petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner to set aside the Order on Sentence dated 11.05.2024 of Shri Chatinder Singh, Learned Judge, Lok Adalat, Delhi.
2. After some submissions learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the Writ Petition may be treated as an Appeal against the Judgment dated 11.05.2024. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is not challenging the conviction, but the Sentence may be modified in view of the fact that he has already undergone 1 month and 20 days sentence out of the sentence of 3 months which was awarded vide impugned Order.
3. Learned ASC and leanred CGSC for Respondent No.2 has No Objection ifthe matter is considered as an Appeal. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is treated as Appeal and may be accordingly numbered. CRL.A._______/2025 (To be numbered by the Registry)
4. The brief facts are that on on 15.10.2022 at about 01:00 A.M HC This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 31/10/2025 at 23:31:03 Jitender Sharma and HC Baljit Singh posted on patrolling duty gave information to ASI Rakesh Prasad that the wire near dirty Nala side, New Line No.4, Pillar No.08/8 OHE is missing. ASI Rakesh Prasad along with Const. Neeraj reached the spot. The other staff members also reached and they all searched the area and found three bundles of OHE wire hidden in bushes. The entire staff laid in ambush and waited for the accused persons to collecte the stolen wire. The three accused namely Dilshad, Mustkeen and Hasnain came to collect the bundles when they were apprehended by the Police and they were arrested. Their Disclosure Statements were recorded. After spending 25 days in Judicial Custody were released on Bail. The Complaint wasfiled in the Court of learned M.M under Section 3 RP (UP) Act. The Petitioner moved an Application for Plea Bargaining under Section 265B Cr.P.C. It was listed for hearing on 11.05.2024 in the National Lok Adalat. The learned M.M decided the matter and convicted the Petitioner along with other two accused to undergo imprisonment for three months with a fine of Rs.2,000/-. The Petitioner was taken into custody on 11.05.2024.
5. The impugned Order is challenged on the ground that the Petitioner was 21 years old at the time of commission of offence and has clean antecedents. It has not been appreciated that in a Plea Bargaining Application the sentence of three months could not have been imposed and in fact only the fine should have been imposed. Learned Judge, Lok Adalat has not taken a lenient view. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned Order on the point of Sentence dated 11.05.2024 be set aside.
6. Learned ASC and leanred CGSC has taken an objection that there could not have been any Appeal against the Order of the Lok Adalat and it This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 31/10/2025 at 23:31:03 could be only limited to the Sentence.
7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner in turn concedes that the Order on Sentence may be modified.
8. Submission heard and record perused.
9. Though, it is stated to be an Order, the impugned Order dated 11.05.2024 had been passed in a National Lok Adalat, but perusal of the Order shows that it has been made by leanred M.M in exercise of his powers. The Order does not bear the signatures of Associate Member. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to term it as an Order of National Lok Adalat, but an Order of learned M.M though passed on day when the National Lok Adalat was held.
10. Furthermore, the Petitioner has not challenged the conviction, but has also pleaded leniency of the Sentence. As submitted, the Petitioner is a young boy and had already undergone imprisonment for 1 month 20 days out of the awarded 3 months sentence. Considering the totality of circumstances, the Order of Sentence dated 11.05.2024 is hereby modified and the Petitioner is sentenced to the imprisoned for the period already undergone, but the fine is enhanced to Rs.5,000/- to be paid within 15 days.
11. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
OCTOBER 29, 2025/va This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 31/10/2025 at 23:31:03