Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Ravinder Pal vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 6 September, 2012

                 IN THE COURT OF SH. ASHUTOSH KUMAR :
     ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE­3 : DWARKA COURTS : DELHI



In the matter of: ­

Criminal Appeal No. 23/2012.



Ravinder Pal
S/o Sh. Naresh Pal
R/o Gali No. 4,
Near Som Bazar, Mukandpur,
Delhi­110084.                                          ... Appellant.

                Vs.

The State (NCT of Delhi).                              ... Respondent.



Date of Filing of Appeal         :    8.8.2012.
Date of Advancing Arguments      :    6.9.2012.
Date of Judgment                 :    6.9.2012.



                                JUDGMENT

1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of this appeal u/s 374(3) CrPC filed by the appellant/convict against the impugned judgment and order on sentence dated 1.8.2012 passed by Sh. Santosh Kumar Singh, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate (Traffic­1), South­West District, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, whereby the appellant/convict was sentenced u/s 185 Motor Vehicle Act with simple imprisonment of 20 days and fine of Rs. 2,000/­, u/s 3/181 Motor Vehicle Act with fine of Rs. 500/­ and u/s 17/177 Motor Vehicle Act with fine of Rs. CA No. 23/12. Ravinder Pal Vs. State. Page No. 1 of 4.

100/­ and in default of payments of fine, simple imprisonment for 10 days.

2. Arguments heard. Perused entire record including TCR.

3. Ld. counsel for appellant/convict has stated that the appellant/convict has already deposited entire fine of Rs. 2,600/­ as imposed by the Ld. Trial Court. At the request of the ld. counsel for appellant/convict, the appeal is treated u/s 375 CrPC as the appellant was convicted on his plea of guilty. Ld. counsel for appellant/convict has stated that as per the provisions of Section 375(b) CrPC, he is only challenging the extent and legality of the sentence and not the conviction. Ld. counsel for appellant/convict has contended that the appellant/convict is 21 years old, sole bread earner for his family and is having old aged ailing parents and two younger brother and sister. Ld. counsel for appellant/convict has further submitted that the appellant/convict has already spent one day in custody from 3.9.2012 to 4.9.2012, after conviction. Ld. counsel for appellant/convict has further argued that the appellant/convict is a first time offender and sending the appellant/convict to jail would unnecessarily traumatize and create hardship for the family of the appellant/convict and that the appellant/convict shall not repeat the said act, in future.

4. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for State has opposed the contentions of the ld. counsel for appellant/convict and has stated CA No. 23/12. Ravinder Pal Vs. State. Page No. 2 of 4.

that the Ld. Trial Court has rightly passed the order on sentence and has already taken lenient view against the appellant/convict and no interference in the order of sentence, passed by the Ld. Trial Court, is required.

5. Ld. Trial Court had convicted the appellant/convict on his plea of guilt as the appellant/convict was driving three wheeler auto under the influence of alcohol and the quantity of alcohol in his blood, as per the breath alcohol analysis report, was 440 mg/100 ml, whereas the permissible limit is 30 mg/100 ml.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances, in view of the reasons given by the Ld. Trial Court and in view of the huge quantity of alcohol found in the blood of the appellant/convict while driving the three wheeler auto, I am of the considered opinion that the Ld. Trial Court has rightly not released the appellant/convict on probation, although he is a first time offender. However, the grounds cited by the ld. counsel for appellant/convict are sufficient for reducing the actual sentence of the appellant/convict. Accordingly, the order of sentence dated 1.8.2012 of the Ld. Trial Court is modified and the appellant/convict is sentenced to imprisonment for one day and fine of Rs. 2,000/­ u/s 185 Motor Vehicle Act, fine of Rs. 500/­ u/s 3/181 Motor Vehicle Act and fine of Rs. 100/­ u/s 17/177 Motor Vehicle Act. Since the entire fine has already been deposited by the appellant/convict before the Ld. Trial Court and since the appellant/convict has already spent one day in custody after his conviction, therefore, the order for actual CA No. 23/12. Ravinder Pal Vs. State. Page No. 3 of 4.

imprisonment is complied with and, hence, the appellant/convict be released forthwith.

7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. TCR alongwith a copy of this judgment be sent to the Ld. Trial Court for information. A copy of this judgment be also given to the convict, free of cost.

8. Appeal file be consigned to record room.

Announced in the open Court on 6.9.2012.

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE­3 :

DWARKA COURTS : DELHI CA No. 23/12. Ravinder Pal Vs. State. Page No. 4 of 4.