The Court has the discretion to consider the appellant's family circumstances and the period of trial in deciding the suspension of sentence and imposing a further fine instead of further imprisonment.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. (Oral)

1. The instant appeal under Section 374(2) read with Section 386 and 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter 'Cr.P.C.') has been filed by appellant for setting aside the judgment dated 26.11.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge), NDPS, Rohini Courts, Delhi (hereinafter 'Trial Court') in Sessions Case No. 194/07, in case FIR bearing no. 215/2006 registered at Police Station Nangloi, Delhi, whereby the appellant was held guilty for committing the offences punishable under Sections 186/353/333/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter 'IPC'). The appeal further assails the order on sentence dated 30.11.2010 vide which the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment as under:

i. Rigorous imprisonment for five years for offence punishable under Section 333/34 of IPC and fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months;

ii. Rigorous imprisonment for one year for offence punishable 353/34 of IPC and fine of Rs.1,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month; and

iii. Rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence punishable 186/34 of IPC (all the sentences to run concurrently).

2. The present appeal was admitted and the sentence of appellant was suspended on 08.12.2011.

3. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution before the Trial Court was that an information was received vide DD No. 30B dated 10.03.2006, where one lady namely Asha Sharma had informed the police officials that one boy had misbehaved with her and had entered into a factory bearing No. D-13, Udyog Nagar, Nangloi. Upon reaching the spot, police officials along with Asha had gone inside the factory where they came to know that one Suresh Babu had misbehaved with Asha Sharma. In the meantime, on receiving information from duty officer, ASI Ram Lal also reached at the spot, who then entered the said factory premises where three/four persons had grappled with him, beating him with kicks and fists and had torn his uniform. Thereafter, more police force was called, who apprehended all the four accused persons and had arrested them. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons.

4. During the course of arguments, the order of conviction was not assailed by the learned counsel for appellant. However, it was stated by learned counsel, on instructions from appellant, that appellant has four children who are studying and a lenient view may be taken as far as order on sentence is concerned.

5. Learned APP for the State, however, argued to the contrary considering the nature of offence.

6. This Court has heard the arguments and perused the material on record.

7. The appellant herein was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years along with payment of fine of Rs.11,000/- each. However, as per nominal roll, the amount of fine has not been paid by the appellant. The appellant has remained in judicial custody for 1 year and 29 days with 3 months 25 days of remission earned. The incident in question pertains to the year 2006 and the appellant has already faced the criminal trial for over 17 years. The appellant is stated to have four children, who are pursuing their studies and he thus has family to look after.

8. This Court, considering aforesaid circumstances and the fact that appellant has been facing criminal trial for almost 17 years, is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by requiring him to undergo the remaining portion of the sentence at this belated stage. Further the ends of justice will be met by releasing the appellant on the period of sentence already undergone, but by imposing further fine of Rs. 5,000/-. Since the fine imposed upon appellant by virtue of order on sentence dated 30.11.2010 also stands unpaid, the entire fine imposed upon the appellant by the learned Trial Co