Punjab-Haryana High Court
Naresh Alias Narinder Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 13 December, 2010
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
CRA No.441-SB of 2001 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA No.441-SB of 2001
Date of decision : 13.12.2010
Naresh alias Narinder Kumar
...Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
****
Present: Mr. K S Sidhu, Sr. Advocate,
with Vikrant Oberoi, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Pradeep Virk, DAG, Haryana.
****
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL)
1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.01.2001/31.01.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 411 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years.
2. The accused was sent up for trial under Section 302, 364, 392 read with Section 31 of the IPC but in these offences, he was CRA No.441-SB of 2001 -2- acquitted of the charge but convicted under Section 411 IPC. Against the above judgment of conviction, he has preferred this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that on account of remission, the appellant has already completed the entire period of the sentence of imprisonment.
4. Learned counsel has further submitted that the appellant was falsely implicated in another FIR No.302 date 6.12.1990 under Section 393 IPC, registered at Police Station Jhajjar, in which he also stands acquitted.
5. Learned counsel for the State has received a Police Radio Message along with a certified copy of the order addressed to the Advocate General's Office, whereby it has been pointed out that the appellant has been acquitted in case FIR No.302 dated 6.12.1990. The same is taken on record as 'Mark A'.
6. In the above circumstances and keeping in view the custody period already undergone by the appellant, I am of the considered opinion that no purpose would be served in further incarcerating him. The appellant has not misused the concession of bail. He is not involved in any other case after his release on bail.
7. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. However, the sentence of imprisonment qua the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
13.12.2010 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE
Note : Whether to be referred to reporter : Yes / No