FATEH SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Appeal Nos. 256/1994 and 277/1994 are directed against the Judgment and Order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in SC No. 34-A/1994 whereby the learned Judge vide his Judgment and Order dated 30.8.1994 held the appellants guilty under Sections 392/397, Indian Penal Code and further by a separate Order dated 31.8.1994 sentenced the accused to undergo rigorousimprisonment for seven years.

(2.) The cases when called out today, nobody appeared for the appellants in support of the appeals. Since these are cases of 1994 and have been shown on the list for a sufficient amount of time, it can brook no further delay. I, therefore, appoint Mr. R.P. Luthra as Amicus Curiae, who is present on behalf of Delhi State Legal Service Authority to assist the Court.

(3.) With the assistance of the learned amicus curiae, I have gone through the record of the case. The learned amicus curiae, after carefully examining the record of the case, fairly conceded that he is not in a position to challenge the Judgment of conviction. He, however, confined his arguments to the question of sentence. He has referred to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in 2001 Cri.L.J. 147,Dhanai Mahto and Another where the Supreme Court has, while dealing with the case under Section 397, Indian Penal Code, reduced the sentence to below the minimum prescribed. He submits that the occurrence is of 1983 and that the appellants have already undergone a fair amount of sentence. They have not belied the trust bestowed upon them by this Court They have faced the ordeal of trial for 18 years. They have now joined the mainstream of the society as useful citizens and no useful purpose will be served in requiring mem to undergo the remaining portion of sentence at this belated stage.