POONAM KHANNA Vs. STATE OF DELHI
LAWS(DLH)-2007-1-65
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on January 03,2007

POONAM KHANNA Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF DELHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. - (1.) On 20.12.2006 when this revision petition was listed for the first time, this court issued notice only on the question of sentence. In response to the said notice the learned counsel for the State has appeared. Both the counsel agreed that this matter can be disposed of on the basis of material already on record. The petitioner was convicted under Section 409 IPC by the learned ACMM by his judgment dated 13.03.2006. By an order on sentence dated 29.04.2006, the petitioner was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years. She was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5 lacs by way of compensation to the complainant and in default she was required to undergo simple imprisonment for two years.
(2.) Being aggrieved by this order on conviction and sentence the petitioner filed an appeal. The same was disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned order dated 15.11.2006. The conviction was upheld and so was the sentence with regard to the punishment under Section 409 IPC. However, the in default period with regard to the compensation of Rs. 5 lacs was reduced from 2 years simple imprisonment to 1-1/2 years simple imprisonment. The nominal roll indicates that the petitioner has already served out the substantive sentence of 2 years rigorous imprisonment. However, she has not been able to pay the compensation amount of Rs.5 lacs to the complainant as a result of which she is presently undergoing the in-default sentence and she has already been in jail for this sentence for a period of 2 months and 27 days as on 29.12.2006.
(3.) The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that while passing an order on compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the court is required to keep in mind various parameters. He placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab: (1978) 4 SCC 111 and Mangilal v. State of M.P.: (2004) 2 SCC 447 in support of his plea that these considerations would be relevant and have not been taken into account by the courts below while awarding the amount of compensation as well as the sentence in default.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.