Dismissed

Surinder Kaur @ Sundra v. State Ut Chandigarh

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Sept 2009CRR/519/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a criminal revision filed by an elderly woman convicted of prostitution. The court found the conviction merited but noted her age and widowhood. It modified the sentence to offset it with time already served and dismissed the appeal as without merits.

What did the court decide?

The sentence was modified to be satisfied by the one year and ten months of imprisonment already undergone.

Surinder Kaur @ Sundra Vs State Ut Chandigarh — Punjab & Haryana HC (2009) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Crl.Revision No.519 of 2002 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶3

Crl.Rev.No.519 of 2002 Date of decision: 9.9.2009

¶4

Surinder Kaur @ Sundra

... Petitioner

versus

UT Chandigarh

... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH.

¶10

Present: Mr.Karanvir Nanda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent.

¶11

JORA SINGH, J.

¶12

Surinder Kaur @ Sundra filed this revision to impugn judgment dated 7.2.2002 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. Vide this judgment, appeal against the order of conviction and sentence dated 12.10.1998 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, in FIR No.17 dated 17.1.1997 under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 8 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short `the Act’), registered at Police Station Sector 36, Chandigarh, was dismissed.

¶13

Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 17.1.1997, Surjit Singh, DSP, UT, Chandigarh, was present near the dividing road of Sectors 42-43, Chandigarh, near Village Attawa. Then he received a secret information to the effect that Surinder Kaur @ Sundra used to carry on business of prostitution. Surinder Kaur has become old and in order to fulfill the lustful desire of her customers in and around Chandigarh, she used to procure girls from the nearby villages and Chandigarh and used to make them prepare for prostitution against payment. She also used to make the girls to allure the

¶14

Crl.Revision No.519 of 2002 2

¶15

prospective customers by making them stand at the door side of her house. In case the customer was in a low paying capacity, then she allowed the customer to have sex in her own house and if the customer has a good paying capacity, then she allowed the girl to be taken away by the customer at the place of his choice. Some times, she also accompanied the girls for the purpose of prostitution. Surinder Kaur used to charge Rs.300/- to Rs.350/- for sending the girls outside with the customers. At present, Sukhwinder Kaur @ Sukhi is present in the house of Surinder Kaur for the purpose of prostitution and if a bogus punter is sent to the house of Surinder Kaur, then she can be caught red handed. As per the secret information, Surjit Singh, DSP, send his Govt. vehicle along with driver to summon the members of the Advisory Committee, namely, Kanwar, Kulwant Singh, Jagdish Bajaj and Chander Parkash Gandhi. Chandigarh Administration has notified names of certain persons as members of Advisory Committee under the Act. DSP Surjit Singh was appointed as Special Police Officer of South Sub Division vide notification (Ex.PH). Taking the information to be credible, a message was sent to Police Station Sector 36, Chandigarh. The SHO along with police party and lady police officer was summoned. In the meantime, Subhash Chander came there and was joined with the police party after disclosing the secret information and mission of the police party. Inspector P.L.Chauhan along with other police officials, including ASI Kulbir Kaur came to the spot. A raiding party was constituted. Subhash Chander was directed to act as a bogus punter. Rs.350/- was handed over to the bogus punter. Before handing over the marked currency notes to the bogus punter, his search was conducted and the currency notes were initialed by DSP Surjit Singh. Bogus punter was directed to visit the house

¶16

Crl.Revision No.519 of 2002 3

¶17

of Surinder Kaur to engage Sukhwinder Kaur for the purpose of prostitution. Bogus punter was also directed to bring both the ladies near Kajheri Barrier and after handing over the marked currency notes to the accused to give agreed signal to the police party. SI Ram Dayal was directed to act as a shadow witness. He was directed to follow the bogus punter and to hear the conversation of bogus punter with the accused. The shadow witness was also directed to give agreed signal to the raiding party after the marked currency notes are handed over to the accused. As per planning, bogus punter had gone to the house of Surinder Kaur. Shadow witness was following the bogus punter. Girl standing near the door of the house of Surinder Kaur was Sukhwinder Kaur. Sukhwinder Kaur had called the bogus punter near her. Bogus punter was told that if he wanted to enjoy sex with her, then he could talk to her aunt. Bogus punter had gone inside the house of Surinder Kaur. Surinder Kaur was found present in the house. Bogus punter was made to sit on the cot. After enquiry, bogus punter replied to Surinder Kaur that he had come from Sector 45, Chandigarh, and wanted to have sex. Then Surinder Kaur replied that if he wanted to have sex in the house, then she will charge Rs.200/- and if he wanted to take the girl with him, then he is to pay Rs.350/-. After settling the amount, bogus punter had handed over marked currency notes to Surinder Kaur. Rs.150/was kept by Surinder Kaur and remaining amount of Rs.200/- was handed over to Sukhwinder Kaur. After that, Surinder Kaur and Sukhwinder Kaur accompanied the bogus punter in order to go to the place of his choice. Both the accused were brought towards the agreed point and by reaching at the agreed point, agreed signal was given to the raiding party. On receipt of agreed signal, raiding party had apprehended the accused. Agreed signal

¶18

Crl.Revision No.519 of 2002 4

¶19

was also given by the shadow witness. ASI Kulbir Kaur was directed to search the accused and on search of Surinder Kaur, a purse was recovered. Marked currency notes were recovered from the purse. On search of Sukhwinder Kaur, Rs.200/-, i.e., marked currency notes were recovered from her purse. Marked currency notes were taken into police possession. Rough site plan was prepared. Accused were arrested. Ruqa was sent to the Police Station, on the basis of which, formal FIR was recorded. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court.

¶20

After hearing learned PP for the State, defence counsel for the accused and from the perusal of the documents on file, learned trial Court opined that a prima facie case was made out under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Act against accused Surinder Kaur and under Section 8 of the Act against accused Sukhwinder Kaur and charges were framed against the accused accordingly. The accused did not plead quilty and claimed trial.

¶21

The prosecution examined 5 witnesses, namely, ASI Kulbir Kaur (PW1), Subhash Chander (PW2), DSP Surjit Singh (PW3), Chander Parkash (PW4) and SI Ram Dayal (PW5).

¶22

After closing of prosecution evidence, statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied all the prosecution allegations and pleaded to be innocent. Opportunity was given to the accused to lead evidence in defence, but no defence was led.

¶23

On merit, trial Court opined that the accused had committed an offence punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 8 of the Act, and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment as under:-

¶24

“Accused Surinder Kaur was sentenced to undergo RI for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of

¶25

Crl.Revision No.519 of 2002 5

¶26

fine, to further undergo RI for two months under Section 3 of the Act, to undergo RI for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for two months under Section 4 of the Act, and to undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for two months under Section 5 of the Act. All the sentences imposed upon Surinder Kaur were ordered to run concurrently.

¶27

Accused Sukhwinder Kaur was sentenced to undergo RI for three months under Section 8 of the Act.”

¶28

Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment/order dated 12.10.1998, appeal was preferred, but the appeal was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 7.2.2007.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is a widow. She was 60 years’ old at the time of alleged occurrence. Occurrence was in the month of January, 1997. The petitioner has already undergone one year and ten months. Learned counsel requested to take a lenient view.

¶30

Learned State counsel argued that no doubt, the petitioner is an old lady, but the offence is of serious nature. He has no objection if a lenient view is taken.

¶31

I have gone through the evidence on the file. DSP Surjit Singh on receipt of secret information had summoned the SHO with a lady officer. Subhash Chander was deputed to act as bogus punter and SI Ram Dayal was deputed to act as a shadow witness. Chander Parkash, Member of the Advisory Board, was also joined. As per planning, bogus punter and shadow witness were sent to the house of the petitioner. Marked currency

¶32

Crl.Revision No.519 of 2002 6

¶33

notes were paid to the petitioner and the petitioner had supplied the girl to the bogus punter to have sex. Both the ladies after receipt of agreed signal were arrested. Marked currency notes were recovered from the petitioner and Sukhwinder Kaur. So in view of the statements of ASI Kulbir Kaur, Subhash Chander, DSP Surjit Singh, SI Ram Dayal and Chander Parkash, prosecution story shows that the petitioner was carrying on the business of prostitution. She was supplying girls to have sex against payment.

¶34

Occurrence was in the month of January 1997. At that time, the petitioner was 60 years’ old. Petitioner is an old lady. She is a widow. The petitioner is to become hard criminal if again sent to jail to serve the sentence awarded to him. The petitioner has already undergone one year and ten months out of actual sentence. Ends of justice would be fully met if a lenient view is taken and the petitioner is directed to undergo imprisonment already undergone.

¶35

Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to undergo

¶36

imprisonment already undergone (one year and ten months).

¶37

With the aforesaid modification, the revision, being without merits, is dismissed.

¶38

9.9.2009 ( JORA SINGH ) pk JUDGE

Surinder Kaur @ Sundra v. State Ut Chandigarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surinder Kaur @ Sundra v. State Ut Chandigarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganga Ram Vs Jagdish and Others

Amar Singh Vs Pb.State

Virender Kumar Sethi Vs Manish Kumar Dawar and Anr.

Janga Singh Vs State of Haryana

Arvind Kishore Puri and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Manjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Others