Delhi District Court
Shri Sushil Kumar vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 24 November, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY SHARMA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - I (EAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
Crl. Appeal No. 47/2010
Unique Case ID No. 02402R0325062010
Shri Sushil Kumar
S/o Shri Prakash Chand
R/o House in Gali No. 2, Lajjapuri,
Chamri Road, Hapur,
District Ghaziabad, UP ...... Appellant
VERSUS
The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) ......Respondent
(In case FIR No. 84/2007
U/S 3/4/7 ITP Act
PS Mandawali)
Date of Institution of Case : 20.11.2010
Date on which judgment Reserved : 23.11.2010
Date on which judgment delivered : 24.11.2010
JUDGMENT :
This appeal under Section 375 Cr. PC against the impugned order on sentence dt. 25.10.2010 vide which the Crl Appeal No. 47/2010 1 of 5 appellant was sentenced to RI for one year and was also imposed a fine of Rs.2000/- in default SI for one month , for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the ITP Act.
2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant was one of the accused in the charge sheet filed against him and four other accused for the offences under Section 3/4/7 of the ITP Act. The other four accused were all females who were sentenced to pay a fine only on their plea of guilt. The appellant also moved an application for pleading guilty which was accepted and after recording his plea , he was held guilty for the said offences and was sentenced accordingly as per the impugned order.
3. I have heard Shri AS Khan - Advocate for the appellant, Shri Ashok Kumar - Ld. Addl. PP for the State/respondent and have also gone through the Trial Court Record summoned during the proceedings.
Crl Appeal No. 47/2010 2 of 5
4. It was submitted by Ld. Counsel for the appellant that since the other accused were let off after imposition of fine only, the appellant also moved an application for pleading guilty with the hope that he would also be let off on payment of fine. It was submitted that the appellant is an innocent person and was falsely implicated in this case. It was also submitted that he is a married person and had to sustain his family and is part of the main stream of the society. It was also submitted that he has no criminal antecedents.
5. I have considered the rival contentions. It was observed by the Ld. Trial Court in the impugned order that the case of the appellant cannot be taken at parity with the other accused since the other accused were females who cannot be perpetrators for the offence of prostitution and therefore, the same approach cannot be adopted with the appellant.
6. No doubt sentencing is a total discretion of the Trial Court and there is no bar for sentencing different accused to Crl Appeal No. 47/2010 3 of 5 different sentences for the reasons to be stated. However, if two accused are charged with the same offence, there should be some parity in the sentence. When the accused himself pleads guilty, he pleads so for the reason of plea bargaining. In Thippeswami Vs. State of Karnataka AIR 1983 SC 747 it was held that when the accused pleaded guilty by reason of plea bargaining, which course he would not have followed, if he were aware that he would not be sentenced to fine only but also to substantive sentence of imprisonment, the conviction is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution as he was induced to plead guilty on the promise of being let off with the sentence of fine only. In that case, the Hon'ble Apex Court set aside the conviction directing full fledge trial of the appellant.
7. In this case as well, the appellant apparently pleaded guilty with the belief that he would also be let off with the payment of fine only as the other accused. He would have not pleaded so, had he been aware hat he would be given substantive Crl Appeal No. 47/2010 4 of 5 sentence of imprisonment as well. Thus, he was induced by the circumstance to plead guilty.
8. In view of the above judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the appellant therefore, deserves to be tried for the offences charged with before he is held guilty or is sentenced to any imprisonment.
9. In view thereof, the impugned order dt. 25.10.2010 is hereby set aside with directions to hold the trial of the accused as per law for the offences for which he has been charged with . The present revision is accordingly allowed in terms of the above directions.
Appeal file be consigned to record room and the Trial Court Record be sent back to the concerned court alongwith a copy of this order.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 24th day of November 2010 (SANJAY SHARMA) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE(EAST) - I KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI Crl Appeal No. 47/2010 5 of 5