; ' $-51 * + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.REV.P. 301/2010 ARUN KATHURIA Through Nemo versus SHASHISHEKHARSEEM Through Mr.A.Maitri, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALl ORDER 05.05.2011 ..... Petitioner ..... Respondent 1. There is no appearance on behalf of the petitioner. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent is present and states that the respondent was convicted on 22.1.2008 and sentenced on 30.4.2008. The respondent was sentenced to SI of 12 months and a fine of Rs.40 lacs and in default of payment of fine, the respondent was directed to undergo a further imprisonment of six months. It was further directed that out of the aforesaid amount of lacs, a sum of Rs.39.80 lacs shall be given as compensation to the present petitioner complainant. 3. The respondent being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, preferred an appeal which was listed before the learned ASJ bearing Crl.A. no.81/09. The said appeal was decided on 14.5.2010. The learned Sessions Judge upheld the conviction of the respondent but reduced the sentence from a Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified period of one year to SlX months and further reduced the compensation to an amount of lacs. On default of payment of compensation, the respondent was further directed to undergo a sentence of six months. 4. The appellant had filed a criminal revision petition against the order of learned ASJ. The said revision petition has been dismissed today as having become infructous on the ground that the petitioner has already undergone the substantive sentence as well as the default sentence. The present revision petition has been filed by the complainant against the same judgment dated 14.5.2010 contending that the sentence of the respondent herein be enhanced. 5. The petitioner is not present today despite second call. 6. I have gone through the impugned judgment and I find no impropriety, incorrectness or illegality in the judgment of the learned ASJ, Delhi. Moreover, since the respondent/ convict has already undergone the substantive sentence as well as the default sentence, I do not consider it to be a fit case to warrant interference of the Court, so as to enhance the sentence. 7. The sentence which has been imposed by the ld. Magistrate was one year which was reduced to 6 months by the ASJ. I don't think that this sentence is inadequate or unreasonable. Once the Courts below have exercised the discretion reasonably and fairly, I do not think it calls for any interference. 8. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. V.K. SHALI,J MAY 05,2011 'RN'