Delhi District Court
State vs . Kapil & Ors. on 8 April, 2010
1
FIR No. 84/06
State vs. Kapil & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANDEEP GARG, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE (CENTRAL)-05, DELHI
State Vs. : Kapil & Ors.
FIR No. : 84/06
U/S : 3/4/5/8 ITP Act
PS : Kamla Mkt.
JUDGMENT
a Sl. No. of the case : 2296/2
b Date of commission of offence : 08.02.2006
c Date of institution of the case : 10.04.2006
c Name of complainant : Inspector Rakesh Giri
d Name & address of accused : Pooja D/o Bharose Lal R/o
: Village Chhattrika Pura, ward
: no.2, District Murena, M.P.
: Present Address :5220, Harish
: Chand Building, Left Side, GB
: Road, Delhi.
e Offence complained of : U/s 8 ITP Act
f Plea of accused : Pleaded guilty
g Arguments heard on : 08.04.2010
g Final order : Convicted
h Date of Judgment : 08.04.2010
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. Accused Pooja has been sent to face trial for offence U/s 8 ITP Act with the allegations that on 08.02.2006, at about 05:40 PM, near the staircase, in the varanda of building no. 5220, Harish Chand, GB Road, First Floor, left side, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Kamla Market, the accused seduced the complainant Ram Surat Singh for purpose of prostitution in a public place. Investigation was carried out.
2. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed on 10.04.2006. Charge U/s 8 of the ITP Act framed upon the accused on 15.05.2006 to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During course of trial, the accused has admitted the prosecution case. She has been explained the accusations and warned of the consequences. Despite warning, the accused insisted on her admission. It is held in State of Maharastra Vs. Dhruwa Wollen Mills Pvt. Ltd. 1991 Cr.L.J. 3141 (Bom.) that:-
"If the substance of occupation is properly explained to the Page 1 of 3 2 FIR No. 84/06 State vs. Kapil & Ors.
accused and the accused understands fully the implication of the charge and pleads guilty, the Magistrate can record such plea and convict the accused on accepting such plea. But if the accused is not present before the Magistrate and does not plead guilty, the plea of guilty by other accused on his behalf, is illegal."
3. In view of the admission of the accused Puja, she is convicted for offence U/s 8 ITP Act.
Announced in the open (Sandeep Garg)
Court on 08.04.2010 MM(Central)-05,
Delhi.
Page 2 of 3
3
FIR No. 84/06
State vs. Kapil & Ors.
ORDER ON POINT OF SENTENCE
I have heard, Ld. APP for State and the Ld. Counsel for convict on point of sentence. Ld. Counsel for the convict submits that she is the sole bread earner in the family and had faced trial for long. She has left the profession and is now gainfully employed in Mumbai.
Heard. Considering the socio-economic condition of the convict and the fact that the convict has family to be looked after and she wants to repent, convict is sentenced to TRC and fined Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, convict to undergo SI for five days. Fine deposited. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open (Sandeep Garg)
Court on 08.04.2010 MM(Central)-05,
Delhi.
Page 3 of 3