Delhi High Court - Orders
Sentence) Vishnu Shankar vs The State Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 26 October, 2021
Author: Mukta Gupta
Bench: Mukta Gupta
$~ 28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.REV.P. 336/2021
CRL.M.A. 16841/2021 (for stay)
CRL.M.B. 1272/2021 (under Section 397 CrPC for suspension of
sentence)
VISHNU SHANKAR ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.Rakesh Kakar, Advocate.
Versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. .... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Tarang Srivastava, APP for the
State with IO SI Amit Kumar,
P.S.H.N.Din.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
ORDER
% 26.10.2021 The hearing has been conducted through physical mode.
CRL.REV.P. 336/2021CRL.M.A. 16841/2021 (for stay) CRL.M.B. 1272/2021 (under Section 397 CrPC for suspension of sentence)
1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 8th October 2021 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, South East District, Saket Courts upholding the judgment of conviction dated 31st July 2019 and order on sentence dated 5th August 2019 whereby Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.REV.P. 336/2021 Page 1 of 3 By:VANDANA Signing Date:27.10.2021 00:21:39 the petitioner was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 279/338 IPC and 474 IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that initially, the charge sheet was filed for offences punishable under Sections 279/338 IPC, however, after four years, a supplementary charge sheet was filed under Section 474 IPC claiming that the driving licence of the petitioner was forged. The petitioner produced Om Prakash as DW-3 in the defence evidence, who deposed that the petitioner was holder of a valid driving licence which was issued from Sheikh Sarai Authority, Delhi bearing No. P03012005439434 in favour of the petitioner on 22nd January 2005 and was valid till 21st January 2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that a person holding a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle is also authorized to drive light goods vehicle and the petitioner was driving the canter which was in the category of light goods vehicle and hence, there was no need for the petitioner to have committed the offence and he has been falsely implicated. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Annappa Irappa Neskria (2008) 3 SCC 464 and Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2017) 14 SCC 663.
3. Notice. Mr.Tarang Srivastava, learned APP for the State accepts notice.
4. List this petition and applications for hearing on 14th March 2022.
5. Till the next date of hearing, the sentence of the petitioner is suspended on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹ 25,000/- with one surety bond of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court; further subject to the condition that along with the personal Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.REV.P. 336/2021 Page 2 of 3 By:VANDANA Signing Date:27.10.2021 00:21:39 bond, the petitioner will also submit his residential address and mobile phone number on which the petitioner can be contacted and in case the residential address and mobile number are changed, the changed residential address and mobile phone number will be intimated to this Court by way of an affidavit.
6. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
OCTOBER 26, 2021/akb Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.REV.P. 336/2021 Page 3 of 3 By:VANDANA Signing Date:27.10.2021 00:21:39