Delhi District Court
Sampat S/O Sh. P. Sundaram vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 12 October, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SH. R.K.GAUBA, ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE 01
(CENTRAL) DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. : 30/2010
ID No. 02401R0426302010
Sampat s/o Sh. P. Sundaram,
R/o H. No. E397, New Simapuri, Delhi
(presently confined at CJ1, Tihar, New Delhi)
.... Appellant
VS
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
.... Respondent
Instituted on : 18.09.2010
Judgment reserved on: 12.10.2010
Judgment pronounced on: 12.10.2010
J U D G M E N T
1. This criminal appeal has been preferred against order dated 10.09.2010 passed by Sh. Ashu Garg, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi in complaint case no. 10 of 2010 under Section 3 of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, whereby the appellant after being held guilty and convicted for the said offence was sentenced to simple imprisonment for CA No 30/10 Sampat Vs. State Page No.1of 5 six months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/, and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days with benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C.
2. The appeal has been resisted by the State. I have heard Ms. Chitra Mal, advocate, counsel provided by DLSA for the appellant and Sh. R.K.Tanwar, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. I have gone through the trial court record and have given my considered thoughts to the relevant contentions urged on behalf of the appellant.
3. Perusal of trial court record indicates that the appellant was arrested on 18.05.2010 with a parcel booked with railways for transportation. On being so apprehended, he was unable to account for the said property which on being suspected to be stolen property of railways was seized and he was taken into custody by Railway Protection Force staff. The investigation brought out confirmation of the fact that the property seized from the possession of the appellant was in fact railway property within the meaning of the expression used in the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. On the basis of these allegations, a complaint was preferred in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate on 17.07.2010 on which, after cognizance, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate proceeded to record the precharge evidence, it being a warrant trial case based on complaint. After recording the precharge evidence, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate considered the question of charge. He found that evidence led through the three witnesses had not been controverted in any manner as the opportunity for crossexamination was not availed of. Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate thus found charge made out for the CA No 30/10 Sampat Vs. State Page No.2of 5 offence under Section 3 of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. Charge was accordingly framed to which accused voluntarily pleaded guilty. On the basis of said plea of guilt, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate passed the judgment on 10.09.2010 holding the appellant guilty and convicted him accordingly.
4. At the stage of consideration of sentence, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate found that in view of the social economic condition of the appellant and also the fact that property in question was of small value, a lenient view was called for. He, thus, awarded the sentence mentioned above.
5. In the appeal, the sole contention raised is that the appellant is a poor person hailing from Tamil Nadu and caught in Delhi in these circumstances. He has a family with small children to support. The provisions contained in Section 3 of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, provides that in case of first offence punishment may extend to five years or with fine, though with rider of minimum sentence of imprisonment for one year with fine not less than Rs.1000/, unless there are special and adequate reasons.
6. The fact that Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate considered it just and proper to award sentence of imprisonment less than one year, indicates that in his opinion adequate reasons exist for imposing punishment less than the minimum provided in the law. I would add one more reason to those special and adequate reasons mentioned in the impugned order which is to the effect that there is no past criminal record of the appellant, as no report to this effect has been placed on record. CA No 30/10 Sampat Vs. State Page No.3of 5
7. In above facts and circumstances, I find there is scope for further lenient view in the sentence awarded against the appellant.
8. The appellant was arrested on 18.05.2010. He has already suffered imprisonment for one week less than five months. In my view, period of incarceration, by itself should serve the ends of justice. Therefore, the impugned order is modified. Imposition of fine as part of sentence is set aside. The appellant is sentenced to the period of imprisonment of detention already undergone in custody. Appeal stands disposed of on these terms.
9. Copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the appellant.
10. The appellant is sent to jail under appropriate warrant to serve the sentence with the directions that he, having already served the sentence, be released from custody forthwith, unless required in any other case.
11. Trial Court record along with copy of the judgment be returned.
12.Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court on
This 12th October, 2010 ( R.K. Gauba)
Addl. Sessions Judge
01
Central, Delhi.
CA No 30/10 Sampat Vs. State Page No.4of 5
CA No 30/10 Sampat Vs. State Page No.5of 5