Delhi District Court
Manoj Kumar vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 7 April, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SH. SONU AGNIHOTRI:
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE02:
DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 22/2019
Case Registration No. 189/2019
CNR No. DLSW010052402019
MANOJ KUMAR
S/o Sh. Ram Kishan Sanhotra
R/o 20C, Old Ankarkali, H4,
Krishna Nagar,
Delhi110051.
.... Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
.... Respondent
Date of institution : 20.04.2019
Date of reserving the order : 07.04.2021
Date of pronouncement : 07.04.2021
JUDGMENT
1. This is an appeal u/s 375 (b) of Code of Criminal Procedure preferred by Manoj Kumar, convict/appellant against order of conviction and order on sentence dated 22.03.2019 passed by court of Sh. Himanshu Raman Singh, Ld. MM, Manoj Kumar Vs. State of NCT of Delhi Case Registration No. 189/2019 page no. 1 of 6 Dwarka Courts, Delhi whereby appellant was sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 2500/ in total (for offence U/sec 185, 138 (3)/177 and 3/181 of M. V. Act) and further sentenced to SI for two days for offence U/sec 185 of M. V. Act.
2. The brief facts as mentioned in the appeal are as follows:
3. It is stated that alleged case of prosecution is that on 22.03.2019, appellant was found driving private car under influence of liquor i.e. 59/100 ml which was beyond permissible limit i.e. 30mg/100 ml and hence, violated traffic rules and regulations.
4. It is stated that when challan No. DCC51660183719 was imposed on appellant, he was directed to appear before Ld. Court. It is stated that in terms of directions, appellant appeared before Hon'ble court on 22.03.2019. It is stated that on 22.03.2019, matter was heard and in normal course without explaining right of appellant of trial and appellant was sentenced to simple imprisonment for period of 02 days and fine of Rs. 2500/.
5. It is stated that in a feared manner and under impression maximum fine may be imposed upon appellant, appellant pleated guilty and Ld. Trial Court vide order on conviction and order on sentence dated 22.03.2019, sentenced appellant to undergo simple imprisonment for 02 days alongwith total fine of Rs. 2500/ for above mentioned offence.
Manoj Kumar Vs. State of NCT of Delhi Case Registration No. 189/2019 page no. 2 of 6
6. Following grounds are taken by appellant to challenge impugned order:
a) Because order of conviction and order on sentence is bad in law as well as facts.
b) Because appellant in normal course of proceedings pleaded guilty without knowing his right of trial.
c) Because this is first offence of appellant and offence is not so heinous for which appellant may be sentenced to 02 days of simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2500/. Appellant had already pleaded guilty and paid fine of Rs. 2500/ on date of challan itself i.e. on 22.03.2019.
(d) Because appellant is young person aged about 30 years, he is working in a very reputed company as Senior Group Manager and engagement ceremony of convict has been just performed and very soon he will going to marry and in case, he is sent to judicial custody, his entire reputation amongst his relatives and friends shall be completely ruined and further there are chances that marriage of convict/appellant shall also be broken.
(e) Because as appellant is sole bread earner of his family and in case, he is sent behind bars, irreparable loss would be caused to him.
(f) Because order dated 22.03.2019 is palpably wrong and is liable to be set aside.
Manoj Kumar Vs. State of NCT of Delhi Case Registration No. 189/2019 page no. 3 of 6
(g) Because no other same/similar appeal has been filed before any District Courts in Delhi or before Hon'ble High Court or Supreme Court of India.
7. It has been prayed to allow present appeal and set aside impugned order of sentence dated 22.03.2019.
8. I have heard arguments addressed by respective counsels and perused the record including TCR.
9. Counsel for appellant during course of arguments submitted that appellant has already deposited fine amount. It is submitted that appellant is aggrieved by order of imprisonment for 02 days passed by Ld. Trial Court for offence u/s 185 of MV Act. It is submitted that appellant is not a prior convict and in case, appellant is sent to Jail, it may have adverse impact on his psyche and appellant may come in contact with hardened criminals which may ultimately result in bad preaching of appellant. It is submitted that appellant undertakes that he will not drive after drinking in future. It is submitted that in case, appellant is sent to custody, his is likely to loose his job in present scenario of dwindling economy due to Covid19 which is likely to put life of his family in ruins as appellant is sole bread earner of his family.
10. Ld. Addl. PP for state on the other hand has supported impugned order and has submitted that even if it is considered that no prior conviction of appellant has been proved on record, Manoj Kumar Vs. State of NCT of Delhi Case Registration No. 189/2019 page no. 4 of 6 still for commission of offence u/s 185 of MV Act, punishment which may extend to six months has been prescribed for first offence and already lenient view has been taken by Ld. Trial Court while awarding sentence to appellant which is merely 02 days imprisonment. Ld. Addl. PP for state has prayed for maintaining sentence granted by Ld. Trial Court vide impugned order.
11. No doubt, technically, comparatively lenient view has been taken by Ld. Trial Court while sentencing appellant, I am of the view that sending appellant behind bars may bring him with contact with hardened criminals who may not teach him right lessons. Appellant is doing job and has family to support. It has been contended that appellant is sole bread earner in his family and sentencing him to prison may spoil his carrier prospects in an economy shattered by Covid19 and will further expose appellant to Covid19 itself. It should be endeavour of court to bring about change in perverse thinking of offenders rather than making them prone to committing more serious offences. In the circumstances, when there is no prior conviction of appellant proved on record by State, I am of the view that sentencing appellant to imprisonment may operate too harsh upon appellant. Hence, taking a lenient view in order to subserve interest of justice, sentence of imprisonment of 02 days awarded to appellant vide impugned order for commission Manoj Kumar Vs. State of NCT of Delhi Case Registration No. 189/2019 page no. 5 of 6 of offence u/s 185 of MV Act is modified to till rising of the Court. Let appellant be taken into custody for TRC. Appeal filed by appellant thus stands disposed of accordingly.
12. A copy of this judgment be sent to Ld. Trial Court alongwith Trial Court Record.
13. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Dictated and Announced (Sonu Agnihotri)
in the open court on 07.04.2021 ASJ02 (South West),
Dwarka Courts, Delhi
Manoj Kumar Vs. State of NCT of Delhi Case Registration No. 189/2019
page no. 6 of 6