Delhi District Court
State vs Accused on 29 September, 2012
IN THE COURT OF DR. T.R. NAVAL, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE-02, SPECIAL JUDGE UNDER SC & ST (POA) ACT
EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
SC/ST NO.07/09 Date of Institution :14.09.2007
FIR No.491/05 Date of Argument :26.09.2012
PS Mandawali Date of Order :29.09.2012
U/S 3(1) (x) SC & ST (POA) Act
Unique Case I.D. No.02402R0683752006
State Versus Accused
Mohd. Ali Ansari
S/o Ahmad Ali Ansari
R/o D-569, West Vinod Nagar,
Delhi.
JUDGMENT
The facts in brief of the prosecution case are that accused Mohd. Ali Ansari, during the period between 28.10.2003 to August 2005 at D-408, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi, had been intentionally insulting Smt. Sudesh Swaroop, a member of Scheduled Caste community by calling her 'you Sudesh Swaroop Chamari hai' with intention to humiliate her. She reported the matter to SHO P.S. Mandawali, vide her complaint dated 14.12.2004. She, inter alia, alleged that in November 2002, she went to Delhi High Court for the purpose of her enrolment in Delhi Bar Council, where she met Mohd. Ali accused. She also disclosed during conversation that she would practice in SC/ST No.07/09 State Vs. Mohd. Ali Ansari Page 1/ 23 chamber no. 510, Karkardooma Courts along with her relative (mausaji) Sh. Mangat Ram. Accused started visiting her at said chamber. He also came to know that she belonged to Scheduled Caste category. In February 2003 her relative (mausaji) expired. He was having about 55 cases and she had to handle those cases. She started taking help of accused Mohd. Ali Ansari. She was not having good experience of working with accused for 4-5 months and she handed over the cases to him and went to Mumbai. She visited Delhi for the purpose of transfer of her registration from Delhi to Mumbai. Accused Mohd. Ali Ansari started pressurizing her to marry him. He also visited her house and took her forcibly to his house. His family members went out of the house and ultimately he solemnized marriage with her, despite of her unwillingness. It was conveyed to her family members that she had converted to Islam and solemnized marriage. Thereafter, she contested election at the instigation of accused. Accused and his family members started teasing her by saying that she belonged to inferior caste Chamar. Accused also pressurized her to go to Pakistan for taking training for operating revolver which she declined. Once accused also tried to push her in front of running train. She was scared. She made complaint for taking action against the accused. On her statement, a FIR No. 491/05 u/s 3 (1) SC/ST No.07/09 State Vs. Mohd. Ali Ansari Page 2/ 23
(x) the Schedule Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989, here in after referred to as the Act was recorded. Investigating Officer seized caste certificate of complainant and after investigation filed a charge sheet against the accused for his trial for the offence punishable u/s 3 (1)(x) of the Act.
2. Ld. Magistrate after supplying of copies of charge sheet and documents to the accused committed this case to the court of sessions and the case was assigned to this court being a designated court for hearing cases under the the Act.
3. My Ld. Predecessor vide his order dated 05.08.2010 was of the opinion that prima facie there was sufficient material to frame charge against the accused for the offence punishable u/s 3 (1)(x) of the Act, so charge against the accused for said offence was framed and read over to him in vernacular language. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined Ms. Sudesh Kumari, complainant as PW1; Sh. Bir Singh, LDC from SDM Seelampur Office as PW2; HC Kamruddin as PW3; Smt. Harbiri as PW4; Retd. ACP Sh.
SC/ST No.07/09 State Vs. Mohd. Ali Ansari Page 3/ 23Satinder Nath as PW5 and Dr. Nirupama as PW6.
5. After closing of prosecution evidence statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. All the evidence on record against the accused was read over to him. He admitted that he belonged to a caste other than scheduled caste. Complainant PW1 Sudesh Kumari after her registration as an Advocate started practicing as an Advocate with her relative (mausa) Sh. Mangat Ram Advocate. He also admitted that marriage between him and PW1 was solemnized. He expressed his ignorance about the fact that complainant PW1 belonged to jatav caste of scheduled caste. He denied rest of the prosecution evidence and pleaded that PWs deposed against him as they were interested witnesses. PW1 married him after converting from Hinduism to Islamic faith as she wanted to contest election. She contested the same and lost. In order to get rid of his company she falsely implicated him in the present case. He also stated that the Act was not applicable as she is a Muslim lady.
6. In his defence, the accused examined Sh. R.S. Adil, Advocate as DW1, Sh. Misbha ul Haq as DW2 and Sh. Aqueel Ahmed, Advocate as DW3.
SC/ST No.07/09 State Vs. Mohd. Ali Ansari Page 4/ 237. After closing of evidence by both the parties, I have heard arguments addressed by Ld. Counsel for accused and Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for complainant and perused file.
8. On perusal of charge sheet and other documents, on examination and analyzing of evidence on record and on considering the arguments, I have formed my opinions which are discussed herein below in this order.
9. It would be appropriate to reproduce provisions of clause (x) of Section 3 (1) of the Act, which run as under:
"3. Punishment for offences of atrocities. - (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribes,* * *
(x)intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view ;* * * shall be publishable with imprisonment for a term, which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine.* * *"
10. The term "Criminal intimidation" has been defined in S. 503 of the Indian Penal Code. It runs as under:
"503. Criminal Intimidation: Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or SC/ST No.07/09 State Vs. Mohd. Ali Ansari Page 5/ 23 property or to the person or the reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested, with intend to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding of execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
Explanation: A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person, in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this Section."
11. In case of Pishora Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., 2002 CRI.L.J.4130, it was held that in order to make out an offence under S 3(1) (x) of the Act following ingredients must subsist: (i) the act attributed should amount to intentional insult or intimidation; (ii) it should be run with the intention to humiliate; (iii) it should be directed against a member of SC or ST; and (iv) the act attributed should have taken place in public view.
12. Let us analyze the evidence of the prosecution ingredient wise:
The act attributed should amount to intentional insult or intimidation
13. PW1 on this aspect deposed that accused used to confront her in the premise of Karkardooma Court and used to humiliate her. He used to say "Chamari agar tu nahi manegi to tumhare baal kheench kar le jaoonga". If SC/ST No.07/09 State Vs. Mohd. Ali Ansari Page 6/ 23 you (chamari) will not obey him, he will take you by pulling her hair. She made complaint at P.S. Mandawali. Subsequently on 20th and 21st December 2004 when she was present in Karkardooma Courts he confronted her and uttered the same words and also twisted her hands. She made a call to police by ringing number 100. Accused used to create scene publically at Karkardooma Court to humiliate her. Once she was returning from Laxmi Nagar officer to her parents house in the last week of July or first week of August 2005 and she was standing at bus stand Hassanpur Depot. Accused present in the court arrived there by following her and again created a scene and misbehaved with her. He also uttered, "dekhta hun ki tujh chamari ki sunwai kaun karega". (let me see as to who will redress your grievances). In cross-examination PW1 admitted documents EX.PW1/D4 and EX.PW1/D but explained that these were written to win over the confidence of Mohd. Ali Ansari for getting relaxation from his humiliation. She denied the suggestion that she filed present complaint only to terrorize the accused for making extortion from him. She further denied the suggestion that she did not lodge the complaint about the misbehaviour by the accused in Karkardooma Court. She explained that on 21.12.2004 she made a complaint at P.P. Karkardooma Court. She denied the suggestion that accused did not SC/ST No.07/09 State Vs. Mohd. Ali Ansari Page 7/ 23 utter the above cited words or she did not create a scene.
14. PW4 on this aspect deposed that after her marriage whenever complainant visited her house she used to complain to them that accused Mohd. Ali and his family members were not behaving with her properly and used to call her "Chamar, neechi jaati ki and used to tease her". In cross examination she denied the suggestion that she had been tutored by the Counsel for complainant and she deposed falsely.
15. PW6 on this aspect deposed that complainant Sudesh Kumari is sister of her mother (mausi). Once she and her mother went to the house of Mohd. Ali where accused Mohd. Ali addressed her mausi Sudesh by saying "Chamari tune apne rishtedaro ko bula liya hai" (you complainant (chamari) have called your relatives). She felt bad after hearing those words and returned to her house. In cross examination she admitted that neither she nor her mother made a complaint in writing to a person or to police or to any authority. She denied the suggestion that neither she nor her mother visited the house of Mohd. Ali Ansari or that she did not see any alleged happening.
16. It has further been argued by Ld. Defence SC/ST No.07/09 State Vs. Mohd. Ali Ansari Page 8/ 23 Counsel that the testimony of mother PW4 Smt. Harbiri and niece PW6 Dr. Nirupama are not trustworthy as they are interested witnesses.
17. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor that testimonies of PW4 and PW6 are reliable and trustworthy and reliance can be placed thereon. He further argued that even if their testimonies are discarded then also case of the prosecution stands proved by the sole testimony of complainant PW1.
18. My attention goes to a case, Dr. Jhamman Lal v. State (Delhi Administration), 2011 [4] JCC 2932 wherein the Delhi High Court observed that:
"22. Counsel for the appellant has further contended that PW-3 and PW-4 are interested witnesses and, thus, cannot be relied upon. The Apex Court in the case of Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhu Nath Jha reported at (2003) 12 SCC 606, has held as under:
"........ if the relatives or interested witnesses are examined, the court has a duty to analyse the evidence with deeper scrutiny and then come to a conclusion as to whether it has a ring of truth or there is reason for holding that the evidence was biased. ....If the materials show that there is a partisan approach, as indicated above, the court has to analyse the evidence with care and caution."
19. My attention goes to a case Pardeep @ Sonu v.
SC/ST No.07/09 State Vs. Mohd. Ali Ansari Page 9/ 23State, 2011 [2] JCC 1031. The Delhi High Court observed that:
"28. This is no more res Integra that conviction for offence under Section 376 of IPC can be based on the sole testimony of a victim as was held in State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384; and in State of Maharashtra Vs. Chandraprakash Kewal Chand Jain, (1990) 1 SCC 550. However, the testimony of the victim in such cases is very vital and should be without inconsistencies and should not be improbable, unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement and the Court finds it difficult to act on the sole testimony of victim of sexual assault to convict an accused."
[Emphasis supplied]
20. In view of principles of law laid down in case Dr. Jhamman Lal v. State (Delhi Administration) (supra), and Pardeep @ Sonu v. State, (supra), the testimonies of PW4 and PW6 cannot be discarded. The only precaution which is required is that their testimonies have to be examined with great care and caution. I am also convinced that conviction can be based on the single testimony provided, it is consistent, reliable and trustworthy. In the present case I find that testimony of not only PW1 but also of PW4 and PW6 are beyond any contradiction on material point. The testimonies are consistent and the testimonies of PW4 and PW6 have supported the testimony of PW1 and case of the prosecution.
SC/ST No.07/09 State Vs. Mohd. Ali Ansari Page 10/ 23It should be run with the intention to humiliate
21. PW1 on this aspect also deposed that accused used to confront her to humiliate her by using the above cited words. The evidence on this aspect has already been discussed here in above. Same is not being repeated to avoid repetition. The evidence on record and discussed here in above has established that accused used to utter above cited words to the complainant with the intention to insult and humiliate her.
It should be directed against a member of SC or ST
22. It has also been argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that provisions of the Act are not applicable on the facts of the present case as complainant PW1 was not a member of Scheduled Caste at the time of alleged humiliation because she had converted herself from Hindu religion to Islamic religion soon before solemnization of her marriage with the accused in accordance with the Islamic customs and rites.
23. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of counsel for complainant and on behalf of Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor that alleged conversion was not legal and it did not carry any weight.
SC/ST No.07/09 State Vs. Mohd. Ali Ansari Page 11/ 2324. In support of their arguments, they relied on a case reported as Faheem Ahmad vs. Maviya @ Luxmi, MAT. APP. 13/2009 Dated 08.04.2011, wherein it was observed by High Court of Delhi that:
"Now analyzing the facts of the case at hand in the backdrop of the aforesaid legal position, in my considered view the learned trial court has rightly observed that the respondent got prepared her conversion certificate because she wanted to marry the appellant and to achieve this purpose, she did feign to have adopted another religion which was for the only purpose of worldly gain of marriage. It would be appropriate to reproduce para 35 of the impugned judgment as under:
"The petitioner got herself the conversion certificate because she wanted to marry the respondent. In this manner she did feign to have adopted another religion which was only for the purpose of the worldly gain of a marriage. Her act had nothing to do with her faith in Islam. This is confirmed by the respondent himself in his testimony wherein he has deposed that she converted by executing an affidavit expressing her intent to convert and the Qazi issuing a conversion certificate after seeking her affidavit expressing her intent to convert. There is no mention of the Qazi confirming her change in faith or making her utter the Kalma."
20. The learned trial court further found that in the affidavit filed by the respondent in evidence, she testified that she never had professed Islam and was a worshiper of Lord Shiva and such a deposition of the respondent remained unrebutted in the absence of any cross- examination by the appellant. The learned trial court also found that no suggestion was given by the appellant to the respondent that she practiced Islam or read the namaz or kept rozas. The learned trial court further found that even the families of both the parties were not aware of either the said conversion or of the marriage. The learned trial court also found that even the publication of name Maviya SC/ST No.07/09 State Vs. Mohd. Ali Ansari Page 12/ 23 by the respondent nowhere proved the fact that she intended to change her religion from Hinduism to Islam.
21. In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find any infirmity in the findings of the learned trial court on the Issue No.1 and it has been rightly held that there was no conversion of the respondent from Hinduism to Islam."
25. They further relied on a case Lily Thomas vs. Union of India and Ors., AIR 2000 SC 1650, wherein the Apex Court observed that:
"Religion is a matter of faith stemming from the depth of the heart and mind. Religion is a belief which binds the spiritual nature of man to a supernatural being; it is an object of conscientious devotion, faith and pietism. Devotion in its fullest sense is a consecration and denotes an act of worship. Faith in the strict sense constitutes firm reliance on the truth of religious doctrines in every system of religion. Religion, faith or devotion are not easily interchangeable. If the person feigns to have adopted another religion just for some wordly gain or benefit, it would be religious bigotry. Looked at from this angle, a person who mockingly adopts another religion where plurality of marriage is permitted so as to renounce the previous marriage and desert the wife, he cannot be permitted to take advantage of his exploitation as religion is not a commodity to ex exploited. The institution of marriage under every personal law is a scared institution. Under Hindu Law, Marriage is a sacrament. Both have to be preserved."
26. Turning to the case in hand and on perusal of testimony of PW1, I find that she denied her conversion from Hinduism to Islamic faith. However, she admitted that documents EX.PW1/DB and EX.PW1/DA were SC/ST No.07/09 State Vs. Mohd. Ali Ansari Page 13/ 23 signed/thumb impressed by her. Both these documents are in Urdu language. One is alleged conversion deed and second is alleged Nikah Nama. In cross-examination, no suggestion was put to PW1 that either she professed Islamic religion or she offered prayer by way of Namaz or she kept Roja or she observed any other custom of Islamic religion. She specifically deposed that accused started advertising falsely before other persons that she had converted from Hindu to Muslim. On the contrary, she was following all Hindu rites and customs. She further stated that she never converted herself from Hindu religion to Muslim religion for the purpose of solemnization of marriage with Mohd. Ali. She denied the suggestion that she converted from Hindu to Islamic religion on 28.10.2003. She also stated that she never used name of Shiba Ali Ansari or Sheeba @ Sudesh. In these circumstances and further that alleged conversion was made for the purpose of solemnization of marriage, it is not a valid conversion as per principles of law laid down in Faheem Ahmad vs. Maviya @ Luxmi, (supra) and Lily Thomas vs. Union of India and Ors., (supra). Therefore, the status of complainant PW1 remained the same for the purpose of applicability of the Act and it is held that provisions of the Act were applicable in the present case as it could not be established that complainant PW1 was a SC/ST No.07/09 State Vs. Mohd. Ali Ansari Page 14/ 23 Mohammedan lady on the date(s) of alleged incidents.
27. PW1 on this aspect deposed that she knew accused Mohd. Ali Ansari since 2002 when she had gone to Delhi High Court for taking form for enrollment as an Advocate from Delhi Bar Council. She talked with him at first in the office of Delhi Bar Council of Delhi and she made enquiries regarding her enrollment as an Advocate. Accused Mohd. Ali Ansari took her to notary Sandhya Saxena at Patiala House where all her documents were attested by the notary and all her informations was disclosed to the accused. She also disclosed that she belonged to Scheduled Caste community. She had also handed over all her original educational certificates, degrees and caste certificate to the accused. She further deposed that during investigation she handed over photostat copy of scheduled caste certificate to the IO and that was proved as EX.PW1/B in the court. The accused in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. expressed his ignorance about the caste of complainant. On perusal of document EX.PW1/B, I find that it is a caste certificate dated 07.02.1991 and it was issued by Sub Divisional Magistrate to the complainant Sudesh Kumari mentioning her caste as Jatav Chamar. Thus, it has been established on record that complainant belonged to a caste Jatav SC/ST No.07/09 State Vs. Mohd. Ali Ansari Page 15/ 23 Chamar which is one of the Scheduled Caste.
Accused belonged to a caste other than Scheduled Caste
28. Accused also placed on record two documents, namely document regarding conversion of her religion from Hindu to Muslim EX.DW1/DB and Nikah nama EX.PW1/DA. In his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. accused admitted that he belonged to a caste other than Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, on the basis of evidence on record and admission by accused, it is held that accused belonged to a caste other than Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe.
The act attributed should have taken place in public view
29. It has to be seen whether the above act of insult and humiliation was within the public view.
30. It has been argued by Defence Counsel that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused that accused humiliated the complainant within public view. None of the witness stated that accused had allegedly humiliated the complainant in the presence of either public or any other person.
31. In support of his arguments he relied on a case SC/ST No.07/09 State Vs. Mohd. Ali Ansari Page 16/ 23 Daya Bhatnagar & Ors. vs. State, 109(2004) DLT 915, wherein Delhi High Court observed that:
"Keeping this in view, looking to the aims and objects of the Act, the expression "public view" in Section 3(1)(x) of the Act has to be interpreted to mean that the public persons present, (howsoever small number it may be), should be independent and impartial and not interested in any of the parties. In other words, persons having any kind of close relationship or association with the complainant, would necessarily get excluded. I am again in agreement with the interpretation put on the expression "public view"
by learned brother Mr. Justice B.A. Khan. The relevant portion of his judgment reads as under:
"I accordingly hold that expression within 'public view' occurring in Section 3(1)(x) of the Act means within the view which includes hearing, knowledge or accessibility also, of a group of people of the place/locality/village as distinct from few who are not private and are as good as strangers and not linked with the complainant through any close relationship or any business, commercial or any other vested interested and who are not participating members with him in any way. If such group of people comprises anyone of these, it would not satisfy the requirement of 'public view' within the meaning of the expression used."
(Emphasis supplied)
32. Turning to the case in hand I find that complainant, inter alia, deposed that accused and his family members used to say that she belonged to Chamar caste which is equivalent to Chandal. The Hindus were not accepting them and she was living within their house. They used to say these words in the presence of entire family inside the house. Subsequently, accused started SC/ST No.07/09 State Vs. Mohd. Ali Ansari Page 17/ 23 saying these words to her outside the house. She is a practicing Advocate. Accused used to confront her in the premises in Karkardooma Court and used to humiliate her. He used to say that Chamari agar tu nahi maanegi to tumhare baal kheench kar le jaunga". Subsequently, on 20 or 21.12.2004 when she was present in Karkardooma Court, accused confronted her and used to utter the same language and also twisted her hand and he used to create a scene to humiliate her publically. In the last week of July or first week of August 2005 when she was standing at bus stand Hassanpur Depot accused came there and created a scene and misbehaved her and also uttered "dekhta hoon ke tujh chamari ki sunvai kaun karega". Nothing in cross examination could come out which could create a suspicion or doubt that accused did not utter above mentioned words to the complainant at public place and within the public view. Besides, testimony of DW1, DW2 and DW3 are on the aspect of conversion and solemnization of marriage. Thus, their testimony on this aspect is not going to help the accused. This argument is not convincing as the evidence on record has established that complainant was humiliated and intimidated at public place in the Karkardooma Court, at Hassanpur Depot again at public place and both these incidents were viewed by the public which was present there. Therefore, it is held SC/ST No.07/09 State Vs. Mohd. Ali Ansari Page 18/ 23 that this act of the accused amounts to insult and humiliation to the complainant within public view.
33. The testimony of PW2 who proved caste certificate of complainant as Ex.PW2/A, testimony of PW3, who proved rukka as Ex.PW1/A on the complaint and copy of FIR as Ex.PW3/B; and testimony of PW5, Retired ACP, Investigating Officer who conducted the investigation, have also supported the case of the prosecution.
CONCLUSION
34. Consequent upon the above reasons, discussion and evidence on record and particularly discussed here in above, it is held that prosecution has successfully proved on record that complainant Smt. Sudesh Kumari belonged to Jatav Chamar caste which is one of the caste recognized under the Scheduled Caste category. The accused belonged to a caste other than Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The accused insulted the complainant many times at different places in order to humiliate her and that insult and humiliation was done within public view. Therefore, it is held that case of the prosecution stands proved that accused committed an offence of atrocity on the complainant punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST No.07/09 State Vs. Mohd. Ali Ansari Page 19/ 23 Act. Therefore, the accused is held guilty and convicted for the said offence.
35. Accused be taken into custody and case be put up again today for arguments on the quantum of punishment.
Announced in the open court on 29.09.2012 (DR. T.R. NAVAL) Addl. Sessions Judge-02 Special Judge Under SC & ST (POA) ACT East District:KKD Courts:Delhi SC/ST No.07/09 State Vs. Mohd. Ali Ansari Page 20/ 23 IN THE COURT OF DR. T.R. NAVAL, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02, SPECIAL JUDGE UNDER SC & ST (POA) ACT EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI SC/ST NO.07/09 PS Mandawali U/S 3 (1) (x) SC & ST (POA) Act State v. Mohd. Ali Ansari ORDER ON SENTENCE 29.09.2012 Present: Sh. I.U.H. Siddiqui Ld. Addl. P.P. for State.
Convict/Accused in J.C. in custody of HC Manoj Kumar No.7916 and Ct. Mahender Singh No. 2347 DAP.
Sh. Hasibuddin Advocate for accused.
Complainant with Sh. Manoj Kumar Advocate. I have heard arguments on the quantum of sentence.
2. It has been argued on behalf of Ld. Defence Counsel that accused/convict is a young practicing lawyer; he does not have any previous criminal record; he is sole earner of his family; and he has a very good conduct. It has been prayed that lenient view in sentence may be taken and accused may be released on probation.
3. On the other hand it has been argued on behalf of Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor that being qualified SC/ST No.07/09 State Vs. Mohd. Ali Ansari Page 21/ 23 person he has committed such an act hence deterrent sentence may be passed and compensation may be awarded to the complainant. Relief of Probation should not be granted to him.
4. Section 19 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989, here in after referred to as the Act, provides that the provisions of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Probation of Offenders Act shall not apply to any person above the age of 18 years who is found guilty of having committed an offence under the Act. In view of Prohibition for grant of Probation, the relief of probation cannot be granted to the accused/convict.
5. Keeping in view the submissions and all relevant factors and circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that moderate view in sentence may be taken in the present case. Accordingly, convict/accused Mohd. Ali Ansari is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of the Act. He is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default simple imprisonment for 1 year.
6. It is further ordered that if convict/accused Mohd. Ali Ansari has undergone any period in judicial custody, that period will be set off against the sentence as SC/ST No.07/09 State Vs. Mohd. Ali Ansari Page 22/ 23 provided U/s 428 Cr. P.C.
7. The convict/accused Mohd. Ali Ansari be sent to imprisonment to serve the sentence.
8. A copy each of judgment and order on sentence is supplied to convict/accused Mohd. Ali Ansari free of cost.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court on 29.09.2012 (DR. T.R. NAVAL) Addl. Sessions Judge-02 Special Judge Under SC & ST (POA) ACT East District:KKD Courts:Delhi SC/ST No.07/09 State Vs. Mohd. Ali Ansari Page 23/ 23