Delhi High Court
Kanan Mandal vs State on 16 January, 2014
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment:16.01.2014.
+ CRL.A. 1283/2013 & Crl.M (Bail) No.2041/2013
KANAN MANDAL
..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Joginder Tuli, Advocate.
versus
STATE
..... Respondent
Through: Ms.Fizani Hussain, APP along
with SI Giriraj.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1 The appellant Kannan Mandal aged 56 years has been convicted
under Section 366 of the IPC as also sections 4, 5 & 6 of Immoral
Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (in short 'ITP Act') vide judgment dated
27.08.2013 and vide order of sentence of the same day i.e. 27.08.2013
the appellant has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 4 years
and 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment
of fine to undergo SI for 30 days for the offence under Section 366 of
the IPC; for the offence under Section 4 of ITP Act, she has been
sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for a period
of 30 days; for the offence under Section 5 of ITP Act, she has been
sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for a period
of 30 days; for the offence under Section 6 of ITP Act, she has been
sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 4 years and 6 months and to pay
a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for
a period of 30 days. The trial Court was conscious of the fact that
Section 6 of the ITP Act prescribes a minimum sentence of 7 years
giving discretion to the Court to reduce the imprisonment for less than 7
years for reasons which are adequate; the impugned judgment had noted
the reasons in the preceding paragraph which was the age of the
appellant being 56 years and there being no prior conviction against her.
The Court had also noted that she is a lady.
2 Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset submits that he is
not challenging the merits of the judgment but he seeks relief for his
client and period of incarceration already suffered by the appellant; she
having undergone 4 years and more than 3 months of the maximum
sentence of 4 years and 6 months imposed upon her as the period of
sentence.
3 The nominal roll of the appellant reflects this submission of the
learned counsel for the appellant. Out of the maximum sentence
imposed of 4 years and 6 months, the appellant has undergone 4 years, 3
months and about 10 days. The nominal roll also reflects that her
conduct is satisfactory and the work assigned to her of gardening
sahayak has also been satisfactory.
4 As noted supra, she is a lady and there is no criminal background
attached to her prior to this conviction; her conduct even in the jail
during her incarceration of 4 years and more than 3 months being
satisfactory, this Court thinks it to be a fit case to release the appellant
on the period of sentence already undergone by her. Thus while
maintaining the conviction, the period of sentence already undergone by
the appellant be treated as sentence imposed upon her. The appellant be
released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
5 Appeal disposed of in the above terms.
6 A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent for
information and necessary compliance.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
JANUARY 16, 2014
A
