Delhi District Court
State vs . Md Akhil on 26 September, 2019
IN THE COURT OF MS. BHAWANI SHARMA
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : WEST
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
FIR No. 343/2017
ID 3326/2018
U/S. 12 Gambling Act
PS Ranjit Nagar
State Vs. Md Akhil
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. No of case 3326/2018
2. Date of commission of offence 13.12.2017
3. Name of complainant HC Sunil
4. Name of accused Md Akhil
s/o. Sh. Md Alam
r/o. H NO. E49, DDA Flats
New Ranjit Nagar, Delhi
5. Offence complained of U/s. 12 Gambling Act
6. Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
7. Final order Convicted
8. Date of such order 26.9.2019
1. FACTS IN BRIEF/ CASE SET UP BY PROSECUTION: Accused was sent to face trial on the allegations that on 13.12.2017 at about 6.40 PM at E Block near the Park at Balmiki Mandir Ranjit Negar he was found playing satta at public place with the help of papers slips.
2. MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS: After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed by the State Vs. Md Akhil; FIR 343/17; PS Ranjit Nagar 1/7 police against accused. Cognizance of the offence was taken and the accused was summoned. Copy of the chargesheet was supplied to the accused and the matter was adjourned for arguments on charge.
3. NOTICE FRAMED AGAINST THE ACCUSED: Notice for offence punishable u/s. 12 Gambling Act was given to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. EVIDENCE LED BY THE PROSECUTION: In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined two witnesses:
(a)PW1 is Ct Mukesh. PW1 had accompanied the IO to the spot while on patrolling duty. Witness deposed that on 13.12.2017 at about 6.40 PM they received secret information that one person was playing satta a public place with paper slip for certain amount. Witness further stated that IO prepared raiding party and asked many persons to join the investigation but none of them agreed and left the spot without mentioning their names and addresses and thereafter made him decoy customer while handing over a sum of Rs. 100/. Witness further deposed that after placing the satta he gave signal to the IO and the IO came to the spot and apprehended accused from whom one pen, two slips, cash Rs. 140/ was recovered and the same was seized vide memo Ex. PW1/A and accused was arrested vide memo Ex. PW1/C. State Vs. Md Akhil; FIR 343/17; PS Ranjit Nagar 2/7
(b)PW2 is HC Sunil is the investigating officer. Witness deposed about the investigation carried out by him and also proved the documents prepared by him.
5. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSONS: Statement of accused was recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. wherein the incriminating evidence was put to the accused. In the said statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C, accused denied the allegations and chose not to lead any evidence in his defence.
6. ARGUMENTS OF LD. APP FOR STATE AND ACCUSED: Ld APP for the State had argued that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Ld APP for the State had also argued that the factum of gambling at public place by accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, accused is liable to be convicted in this case.
On the other hand, accused stated that he was falsely implicated and nothing was recovered from his possession.
7. REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
(i) Before proceeding further, I need to discuss the relevant legal propositions applicable on to the facts of the case. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that the prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubt State Vs. Md Akhil; FIR 343/17; PS Ranjit Nagar 3/7 by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence & that in order to prove its case on judicial file, the prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs whereby it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused. Further settled it is, that the primary burden of proof for proving the offences in a criminal trial rests on the shoulders of the prosecution, which burden never shifts on to the accused.
(ii) It is no longer Res Integra that accused is entitled to benefit of every reasonable doubt(s) appearing qua the material facts of the prosecution's story whereby such reasonable doubt(s) entitles the accused to acquittal.
(iii) In the light of the above discussed legal position, I shall now step forward to divulge my opinion on the respective fate of the accused.
(iv) PW1 and PW2 deposed that on 13.12.17 they were on patrolling duty and upon receipt of secret information by the IO regarding gaming at public place, they apprehended the accused at the instance of secret informer. The relevant extract of the testimony of the PWs is reproduced below for ready reference: "PW1: On 13.12.2017, I was posted at PS Ranjit Nagar as constable and on that day I was on patrolling duty with HC Sunil. At about 6.40PM while patrolling when we reached at E Block near State Vs. Md Akhil; FIR 343/17; PS Ranjit Nagar 4/7 Balmiki Mandir, Ranjit Nagar, one secret informer informed IO that one person was playing satta with the help of paper slips for certain amount. On this information, IO prepared a raiding party and requested some 56 persons to join the raiding party but none of them agreed and left the spot without disclosing their name or address. Thereafter, IO handed over one currency note of Rs. 100/ to me for placing the same for satta on Number 90 and 91 and also directed me to give signal with hand. I went inside the Gali near the Mandir and noticed the accused busy in writing the number and I went to him and placed stake of Rs. 100/ on number 91 and thereafter I gave the signal to the IO. Thereafter IO reached the spot and we apprehended the accused from whom one pen, two slips, Rs. 140/ cash was recovered. Accused disclosed his name as Md Akhil, present in the court today(correctly identified). The recovered articles were kept in cloth pulanda and seal of RTNGRII. The seal after use was handed over to me. Thereafter, the same were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW1/A bearing my signatures at point A. Thereafter, IO prepared the tehrir and got the case registered through me and after registration of the FIR, I returned to the spot and handed over the copy of the FIR to the IO. Thereafter, IO prepared the site plan Ex. PW1/B bearing my signatures at point A, arrested the accused vide memo Ex. PW1/C and conducted personal search of accused vide memo Ex. PW1/D bearing my signatures at point A and thereafter he was released on bail....."
"PW2: On 13.12.2017, I was posted at PS Ranjit Nagar as constable and on that day I was on patrolling duty with Ct. Mukesh. At about 6.40PM while patrolling when we reached at E Block near Balmiki Mandir, Ranjit Nagar, one secret informer informed me that one person was playing satta with State Vs. Md Akhil; FIR 343/17; PS Ranjit Nagar 5/7 the help of paper slips for certain amount. On this information, I prepared a raiding party and requested some 56 persons to join the raiding party but none of them agreed and left the spot without disclosing their name or address. Thereafter, I handed over one currency note of Rs. 100/ to Ct Mukesh for placing the same for satta on Number 90 and 91 and also directed him to give signal with hand after placing the satta. After sometime, I got signal from Ct Mukesh and I reached the spot and apprehended the accused who revealed his name as Md Akhil, present in the court today(correctly identified).
ON formal search one pen, two slips, Rs. 140/ cash was recovered from accused. The recovered articles were kept in cloth pulanda and seal of RTNGRII and the same were taken into possession vide memo already Ex. PW1/A bearing my signatures at point X. Thereafter, I prepared the tehrir Ex. PW2/A and got the case registered through Ct. Mukesh and after registration of the FIR, he returned to the spot and handed over the copy of the FIR to me. Thereafter, I prepared the site plan already Ex. PW1/B bearing my signatures at point X, arrested the accused vide memo already Ex. PW1/C and conducted personal search of accused vide memo already Ex. PW1/D bearing my signatures at point X and....."
(v) Despite being cross examined nothing beneficial for the defence has come from the mouth of PWs.
(vi) Thus, the prosecution has successfully proved that accused was gaming at a public place. The cumulative and corroborating testimony of PW1 and PW2 also clearly proves that the accused has committed the offence u/s. 12 Gambling Act.
State Vs. Md Akhil; FIR 343/17; PS Ranjit Nagar 6/7
8. CONCLUSION: Keeping in view the facts and circumstances and the discussion made hereinabove, I am of considered view that prosecution has succeeded in proving offence punishable u/s. 12 Gambling Act against accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused is hereby convicted for said offence.
Judgment dictated and BHAWANI SHARMA pronounced in the open Court ACMM:WEST DISTT:DELHI i.e. the 26th of September 2019 (This judgment consists of 7 pages) State Vs. Md Akhil; FIR 343/17; PS Ranjit Nagar 7/7 IN THE COURT OF MS. BHAWANI SHARMA ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : WEST TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI FIR No. 343/2017 ID 3326/2018 U/S. 12 Gambling Act PS Ranjit Nagar State Vs. Md Ahkhil ORDER ON POINT OF SENTENCE Present: Ld APP for State.
Convict in person.
I have heard Ld APP for State as well as convict on the point of sentence and have perused the record.
It is submitted by convict that he are sole bread earner for his family. It is further submitted that he is not a previous convict. Convict has prayed for a lenient view.
On the other hand Ld APP for State submitted that the convict be sentenced to maximum punishment as prescribed for the offence in question.
In the present case convict has been convicted for offence punishable u/s. 12 Gambling Act. No previous conviction has been alleged or proved against convict. The convict is not involved in any such case, as stated by him. Convict is having a family to support.
State Vs. Md Akhil; FIR 343/17; PS Ranjit Nagar Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the convict is facing trial for gaming a public place, I am of considered view that ends of justice would be met if the convict is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/.
Fine has been paid. Receipt be issued.
Sentenced accordingly. Digitally signed
by BHAWANI
BHAWANI SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2019.09.27
15:14:08 +0530
Announced in open Court BHAWANI SHARMA
i.e. the 26th of September 2019 ACMM:WEST DISTT:DELHI
State Vs. Md Akhil; FIR 343/17; PS Ranjit Nagar