SUBHASH CHAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Appeal No. 13 /1995 is directed against the Judgment and Order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in SC No. 82 /1992 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his Judgment and Order dated 24.8.1994 held the appellant guilty under Sections 326/379 /511, Indian Penal Code and further vide Order dated 25.8.1994 sentenced the appellant to undergo RI for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. For offence under Sections 379/511, Indian Penal Code he was awarded sentence of six months with fine of Rs. 500 / - and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months.

(2.) The case when called out today, nobody appeared for the appellant in support of the appeal, inspite of warning being indicated in the cause list. Since this is a case of 1995 it can brook no further delay. Mr. R.P. Luthra is present on behalf of the Legal Aid. I, therefore, appoint him as Amicus Curiae to assist me in this case.

(3.) With the assistance of learned Amicus Curiae and learned Counsel for the State, I have gone through the record of the case. Learned Amicus on the basis of the record submits that he is not in a position to challenge the judgment under challenge but has confined his arguments to the question of sentence only. He submits that the sentence undergone would suffice for the reasons that this is an occurrence of 3.3.1992 and the appellant has undergone incarceration for over three years. He submits that the accused has been on bail since 28.3.1995 and that there has been no complaint about his having belied the trust bestowed upon him by this Court. He submits that the appellant is also not a previous convict and has by now assimilated in the mainstream of society as a useful citizen, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in requiring him to undergo the remaining portion of his sentence at this belated stage. Learned Counsel for the State has no objection if the sentence of the appellant is reduced to that already undergone.