Anita v. State

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Order Reserved on: September 23 2077 Order Pronounced on: October 27. 2077 Crl. Rev.(Pl No,498/2008 ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.AjaY MalviYa, Advocate versus rhroush: Mr.Rajesh Malraian, lffiL?Jllx:t' Standing'Counsel (Crl.) for State. SMT. ANITA THE STATE K

¶1Whether the RePorters of local papers may be allowed to see I the judgment? |\

¶2To be referred to RePorter or - No. not? |

¶3Whether the judgment should I be reported in the Digest? ) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR SUNIL GAUR, I.

¶1Petitioner has been convicted for committing offence under Section 3 and 5 of the 'The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 7956', for running a brothel from Quarter No.1 on 3'd floor of a private colony in Srinivaspuri, Delhi, as in a raid conducted on 29th September, 2005 at about 4.25 pm it was found that three women were found soliciting customers for the purpose of prostitution.

¶2Petitioner alongwith co-accused Surender and Saleem were sentenced by the trial Court to rigorous imprisonment for two a 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. f and half years each and the appeal preferred against the aforesaid conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Appellate Court vide order of 21't July, 2008'

¶3The tenor of the revision petition filed is as if, it is the second appeal, whereas the scope of interference in revision is quite Iimited one, i.e,, to see as to whether there is any illegality or infirmity in the order of the Appellate Court. Re-appreciation of evidence is not required to be undertaken. In this perspective' concurrent finding of guilt of the petitioner has been assailed by the learned counsel on the plea that the entire trial gets vitiated as the Inspector who had conducted the investigation was not vested with the power of special Police officer, in terms of Section 13 of 'The lmmoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956" This very argument was raised before the Appellate Court which has been rightly repelled by referring to Notification dated

14.09.1998 which empowers the Assistant commissioner of Police, all Station House Officers, etc., to conduct and supervise the investigation in terms of section 13 of the aforesaid enactment. Thus, I find that the impugned order cannot be faulted on this ground.

¶4So far as non-compliance of Section 15 of 'The lmmoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 7956' is concerned, I find that the Special police Officer is empowered to conduct a search without warrant and regarding non-joining of independent witnesses in the raid, experience has shown that public persons seldom come forward to join the raiding party. In any case, it is a mere irregularity and the trial is not vitiated on this account as the petitioner failed to show as to what prejudice is caused on account of non-compliance of this provision which is in effect directory and not mandatory. Way back in the year L970, Apex a g-Court in its decision 'Bai Radha vs. State of Guiarat'AlR 1970 SC 1396 had held that non-compliance of Section 15 of 'The lmmoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956', does not vitiate trial. Finding no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, t find no scope for any interference so far as the merits of this case is concerned.

¶5On the quantum of sentence, attention of this Court was drawn by petitioner's counsel to order of L4.1.2009 wherein it was noted that the Jail Superintendant had strongly recommended petitioner'S release on medical ground as she was found to be suffering from several medical complications and the period of incarceration undergone by her by then was five and half months. While taking into consideration the deteriorating health of the petitioner and of her speech being impaired due to neurological complications, the substantive sentence imposed upon the petitioner was suspended.

¶6Considering the fact that the petitioner was arrayed as an accused as the premises from where the brothel was running belonged to her and she could not substantiate her plea of giving the. premises in question on rent to co-accused, and petitioner not found to be residing in any part of the premises in question or nearby, a lenient view on the point of sentence deserves to be taken as the case of the petitioner falls under sub-section 2 of Section 3 of the 'The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 7956', which provides for imposition of rigorous imprisonment for a period upto two years. lt is not the case of the respondent-State that the petitioner was earlier convicted for any offence under 'The lmmoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 7956'. In the light of the Nominal Roll of the petitioner strongly recommending her release on medical grounds and in the peculiarity of facts of the instant case, it is deemed appropriate to reduce the substantive t. t sentence imposed upon the petitioner to the period already undergone by her, while imposing a fine of t2,000/- and in default thereof, petitioner has to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

¶7While maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, with modification on the quantum of sentence as aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of. Trial Court to ensure compliance of this order. IL GAUR) JUDGE October 2L, ?OLL pkb a