Badshah vs State on 20 June, 2017

1. This appeal has been instituted by the appellant Badshah son of

Shri Jainul assailing the impugned judgment dated 04.09.2014 and

impugned order on sentence dated 10.09.2014 of the then learned

District & Sessions Judge (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in

Sessions Case No. 67/2013 in relation to FIR No. 141/2013, Police

Station Preet Vihar.

2. Vide the impugned judgment dated 04.09.2014, the accused/the

appellant herein Badshah was convicted for the commission of the

CRL.A.NO.369/2015 Page 1 of 39
offences punishable under Sections 120B r/w 396 & 460/396/412 of

the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 and Section 14 of the Foreigners

Act, 1946. Vide the impugned order on sentence dated 10.09.2014, the

accused/the appellant herein Badshah was awarded imprisonment for

life and fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under section

120B read with section 395 IPC, 1860 and in default of payment of

fine, he was further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six

months. The accused/the appellant herein Badshah was further

awarded imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence

punishable under section 396 IPC, 1860 and in default of payment of

fine, he was further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six

months. The accused/the appellant herein Badshah was further

awarded rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs.10,000/-

for the offence punishable under section 412 IPC, 1860 and in default

of payment of fine, the accused/the appellant herein Badshah was

directed to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The

accused/the appellant herein Badshah was further awarded rigorous

imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence

punishable under section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and in default

CRL.A.NO.369/2015 Page 2 of 39
of payment of fine, the accused/the appellant herein Badshah was

directed further to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The

accused/the appellant herein Badshah was however held entitled to the

benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C., 1973 i.e. set off of the period of

detention already undergone by him and it was directed that all the

sentences awarded to him would run concurrently.

Source: Indian Kanoon