Delhi High Court
Lata vs State on 23 May, 2017
$~29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : MAY 23, 2017.
+ CRL.A. 703/2003
LATA ..... Appellant
Through None.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Amit Gupta, APP
SI Naresh Kumar PS-Kamla Market
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)
1. Aggrieved by a judgment dated 19.08.2003 of learned
Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.30/2002 arising out of FIR
No.461/2001 at Police Station Kamla Market whereby the appellant was
held guilty for committing offences punishable under Sections 368 read with
Sections 366/373 IPC and Section 3, 4 & 5 ITP Act; the instant appeal has
been preferred by her. By an order dated 23.8.2003, she was awarded
various prison terms; maximum being Rigorous Imprisonment for eight
years with fine `5,000/- under Section 373 IPC. All the sentences were to
operate concurrently.
2. Allegations against the appellant were that on a raid by police at
Kotha No.70, G.B.Road, Delhi, four girls including one 'X'(assumed name)
who were being forced into prostitution by the appellant and three others
were rescued and sent to O.H.G., Nirmal Chayya, Jail Road, Delhi.
3. The appellant's conviction is primarily based upon 'X's
statement. Three other girls who were also examined as witnesses did not
support the prosecution. 'X' in her examination-in-chief had supported the
prosecution but in her cross-examination she clearly admitted that whatever
statement was made by her, it was due to tutoring by the police.
4. By an order dated 27.5.2004, the substantive sentence of the
appellant was suspended till the disposal of the appeal on her furnishing
personal bond in the sum of `20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to
the satisfaction of the Trial Court subject to payment of fine (if any).
5. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, none appeared on
behalf of the appellant. Various processes including non-bailable warrants
were issued against the appellant but she was not traceable. Notice was also
issued to the counsel representing the appellant. He tried his best to contract
the appellant but was unable to get any information about her whereabouts.
Notice was also issued to the surety under Section 446 Cr.P.C. On
25.3.2015, Mr.Devender Singh, surety, appeared in the court and sought
time to produce the appellant. He again was unable to produce her. Order
dated 22.12.2015 reveals that in the proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C.
initiated against surety Devender Kumar, he has deposited the surety amount
of `20,000/- in the court.
6. As per Nominal Roll dated 8.1.2004, the appellant has spent
about two years and four months in jail as on 8.1.2004.
7. Perusal of the order sheets reveals that despite number of
attempts to execute the process against the appellant, it has remained
unserved. None has appeared on behalf of the appellant despite the case
being on board since 2011. Apparently, the appellant is not interested in the
prosecution of the appeal. The appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.
8. It is made clear that if the appellant approaches this Court
within a reasonable time to get her appeal decided on merits, her submission
will be considered favourably.
9. Trial Court record (if any) be sent back forthwith along with
copy of the order. The Trial Court shall issue necessary process to secure
convict's presence to undergo the sentence.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
MAY 23, 2017
sa
