Kanan Mandal Vs. State

Kanan Mandal vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Jan 16, 2014

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1118958

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1118958
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Indermeet Kaur
Decided On: Jan 16, 2014
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kanan Mandal

Respondent

State

Excerpt

.....under section 6 of itp act, she has been sentenced to undergo ri for a period of 4 years and 6 months and to pay a fine of rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo si for a period of 30 days. the trial court was conscious of the fact that section 6 of the itp act prescribes a minimum sentence of 7 years giving discretion to the court to reduce the imprisonment for less than 7 years for reasons which are adequate; the impugned judgment had noted the reasons in the preceding paragraph which was the age of the appellant being 56 years and there being no prior conviction against her. the court had also noted that she is a lady. 2 learned counsel for the appellant at the outset submits that he is not challenging the merits of the judgment but he seeks relief for his client and period of incarceration already suffered by the appellant; she having undergone 4 years and more than 3 months of the maximum sentence of 4 years and 6 months imposed upon her as the period of sentence. 3 the nominal roll of the appellant reflects this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. out of the maximum sentence imposed of 4 years and 6 months, the appellant has undergone 4 years, 3 months and about 10 days. the nominal roll also reflects that her conduct is satisfactory and the work assigned to her of gardening sahayak has also been satisfactory. 4 as noted supra, she is a lady and there is no criminal background attached to her prior to this conviction; her conduct even in the jail during her incarceration of 4 years and more than 3 months being satisfactory, this court thinks it to be a fit case to release the appellant on the period of sentence already undergone by her. thus while maintaining the conviction, the period of sentence already undergone by the appellant be treated as sentence imposed upon her. the appellant be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 5 appeal disposed of in the above terms. 6 a copy of this order be sent to the.....

Full Judgment

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Judgment:16.01.2014. CRL.A. 1283/2013 & Crl.M (Bail) No.2041/2013 KANAN MANDAL Through: ..... Appellant Mr.Joginder Tuli, Advocate. versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Ms.Fizani Hussain, APP along with SI Giriraj. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.

(Oral) 1 The appellant Kannan Mandal aged 56 years has been convicted under Section 366 of the IPC as also sections 4, 5 & 6 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (in short ‘ITP Act’) vide judgment dated 27.08.2013 and vide order of sentence of the same day i.e. 27.08.2013 the appellant has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 4 years and 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 30 days for the offence under Section 366 of the IPC; for the offence under Section 4 of ITP Act, she has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for a period of 30 days; for the offence under Section 5 of ITP Act, she has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for a period of 30 days; for the offence under Section 6 of ITP Act, she has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 4 years and 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for a period of 30 days. The trial Court was conscious of the fact that Section 6 of the ITP Act prescribes a minimum sentence of 7 years giving discretion to the Court to reduce the imprisonment for less than 7 years for reasons which are adequate; the impugned judgment had noted the reasons in the preceding paragraph which was the age of the appellant being 56 years and there being no prior conviction against her. The Court had also noted that she is a lady. 2 Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset submits that he is not challenging the merits of the judgment but he seeks relief for his client and period of incarceration already suffered by the appellant; she having undergone 4 years and more than 3 months of the maximum sentence of 4 years and 6 months imposed upon her as the period of sentence. 3 The nominal roll of the appellant reflects this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. Out of the maximum sentence imposed of 4 years and 6 months, the appellant has undergone 4 years, 3 months and about 10 days. The nominal roll also reflects that her conduct is satisfactory and the work assigned to her of gardening sahayak has also been satisfactory. 4 As noted supra, she is a lady and there is no criminal background attached to her prior to this conviction; her conduct even in the jail during her incarceration of 4 years and more than 3 months being satisfactory, this Court thinks it to be a fit case to release the appellant on the period of sentence already undergone by her. Thus while maintaining the conviction, the period of sentence already undergone by the appellant be treated as sentence imposed upon her. The appellant be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 5 Appeal disposed of in the above terms. 6 A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent for information and necessary compliance. INDERMEET KAUR, J JANUARY16 2014 A

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2014 Same Parties Kanan Mandal vs State Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Indermeet Kaur