Delhi District Court
Prashant Sharma vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 23 August, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SHRI M.R. SETHI: ASJ, SPECIAL
JUDGE(NDPS) NORTH, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
Criminal Appeal 57480/2016 (CA 10/2016)
Prashant Sharma,
S/o Shri Jai Prakash Sharma,
R/o C-3, Village Maujpur,
Delhi.
..... Appellant
Versus
The State (NCT of Delhi)
..... Respondent.
Appeal arising out of order dated 2.2.16
passed in Challan No. 1041-00002-16
Vehicle No. DL-2CAM-7053
Date of institution of the case : 28.07.2016
Date when final arguments concluded : 23.08.2016
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 23.08.2016
JUDGMENT:
1 Appellant before this court has challenged order dated 2.2.16 passed by ld. court of Ms. Sadhika Jalan, MM, Traffic (North), Delhi wherein appellant was sentenced to undergo 3 days SI alongwith fine of Rs.2,000/- in respect of offence punishable U/s 185 MV Act and was convicted but admonished in respect of offence U/s 146/196 MV Act as appellant had shown the insurance before the court. 2 It appears from record that before filing the present appeal, appellant had earlier preferred an appeal against the impugned order which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 6/16 before ld. court of .
(CA 57480/16 Prashant Sharma Vs. The State) Page 1 of4 Shri Rajiv Mehra, ASJ, Central. The said appeal appears to have been disposed off vide order dated 21.7.16 with observation that as challan of the convict had been disposed off by court of Rohini, only the Sessions court at Rohini shall deal with the appeal in question. The appeal accordingly was dismissed only on the legal point alone. Subsequently appellant had preferred the present appeal. 3 In view of aforesaid facts delay in filing the present appeal stands condoned. After the appeal was received on assignment before this court, TCR was summoned and thereafter arguments advanced were heard.
4 It has been submitted by ld. counsel for appellant that as appellant had pleaded guilty before the ld. trial court, he was only challenging the impugned order as regards sentence imposed upon the appellant. It was submitted that appellant was in a private job and was only son of his parents. It was claimed that father of the appellant has already retired and as such appellant is the sole bread earner of his family. As per ld counsel, the appellant was sorry for the incident and in case he was sent to jail term, his parents would suffer great mental shock. It was accordingly prayed that the matter be dealt with compassion.
5 Opposing, it has been submitted by ld. PP that as per challan, the appellant was found under influence of liquor which was 302.9 mg/100 ml. blood as against permissible limit of 30 mg/100 ml. It was claimed that as such the appellant had consumed 10 times the permissible limit. While drawing attention of this court towards the challan, it was pointed out that the challan had been issued on 1.1.16 at about 1.47 AM and apparently the appellant was driving the car after .
(CA 57480/16 Prashant Sharma Vs. The State) Page 2 of4 having attended new year party. It was impressed upon that police authorities and the State have been regularly advising drivers against drunken driving. As per ld. PP the appellant not only had put his own life at risk but had also put to risk lives of other road users. It was claimed that as the appellant had already pleaded guilty before the ld. trial court, there was no scope of handing over any softer sentence to him. Dismissal of appeal was prayed.
6 This court has given thoughtful consideration to arguments advanced and has also perused the record.
7 As per provisions of section 375 Cr. P.C., where an accused has pleaded guilty and has been convicted on such plea, there shall be no appeal except as to the extent or legality of the sentence. 8 As accused / appellant has already pleaded guilty before ld trial court, challenge to the impugned order is limited to the extent or legality of sentence. Perusal of impugned order reveals that there is no illegality in the sentence imposed upon the appellant by the ld. trial court. However, it is extent of sentence which is being looked into by this court.
9 As has been submitted before this court, appellant has aged parents and is sole bread earner of his family, is a graduate who is in a private job. There is nothing on record to the effect that appellant was involved in any criminal activity or had been challaned earlier. In such a matter, there is scope of viewing case of the appellant with compassion as regards extent of sentence.
10 Accordingly, in view of facts and circumstances of case while upholding order of conviction passed by ld. trial court and while upholding sentence regarding fine of Rs.2000/- ( which reportedly has .
(CA 57480/16 Prashant Sharma Vs. The State) Page 3 of4 already been deposited before ld. trial court) and also while upholding impugned order to the effect that the appellant is disqualified from holding any driving license for all types of vehicles for a period of six months from the date of impugned order, sentence of imprisonment of 3 days SI imposed upon the appellant is modified to the extent that he shall remain in custody of court till the time court rises for the day. 11 Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
Announced in open court (M.R. SETHI)
on 23.8.2016 ASJ,Spl. Judge(NDPS)
North,Rohini Courts, Delhi
.
(CA 57480/16 Prashant Sharma Vs. The State) Page 4 of4