Crl.A.No.642/2001 Page 1 of 10

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

+

CRL.A. 642/2001

MOHD. RAHIS KHAN ..... Appellant

Through: Mr. Bhupesh Narula, Advocate

versus

STATE

..... Respondent

Through: Ms. Richa Kapoor, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to

see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the

Digest?

Yes

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

1.

In a judgment which is not clearly worded, one is

not too sure whether the learned Trial Judge has convicted the

appellant for the reasons noted in para 16 and para 19 of the

impugned decision or for the reasons noted only in para 19 of

the impugned decision.

2.

Thus, we shall be dealing with the reasons noted by

the learned Trial Judge in both the paragraphs.

3.

Four accused, Mohd.Rahis Khan, the appellant;

2009:DHC:3892-DB

Crl.A.No.642/2001