Delhi District Court
Aslam vs . State on 19 August, 2008
-:1:-
C.A. NO. 27/08
Aslam Vs. State
IN THE COURT OF SH. B. R. KEDIA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE: DELHI.
C.A. NO. 27/08
Aslam
S/o Usmaan
R/o Jhuggi Near Pragati Madan,
Delhi.
....... Appellant.
Versus
State
........Respondent
Date of institution 08.07.2008.
Arguments heard on 19.08.2008.
Order delivered on 19.08.2008.
O R D E R :-
By virtue of this order I shall dispose of instant criminal appeal, which is directed against the impugned order dt.05.06.08 as passed by Ld. M.M. in a case bearing No. 1348/08, U/S 5 (5) of Bombay Prevention of Begging Act (in short to be referred hereinafter as B.P.B. Act) case -:2:- C.A. NO. 27/08 Aslam Vs. State titled "State Vs. Aslam ", whereby Ld. M.M. was pleased to convict the accused Aslam U/S 5 (5) B.P.B. Act on his pleading guilty and passed order for detention of the convict in certified institution for one year. So, by being aggrieved against the said order of the Ld. M.M., this convict has preferred this appeal.
2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution as found reflected from the T.C.R. is that on 05.06.08 at about 10 : 25 A.M at Footpath near Bharo Mandir, Pragati Maidan, Delhi, the accused Aslam was found begging from the passersby. On the basis of said accusation notice U/S 251 Cr. P.C. was served to the accused vide order dt.05.06.08 and on voluntarily pleading guilty by the accused, Ld. M.M. was pleased to pass the impugned order dt. 05.06.08, which is assailed in this appeal. -:3:- C.A. NO. 27/08
3. I have heard Ms. Preeti Gupta, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for the appellant, Ld. APP for the State and perused the relevant material as available on the case record.
4. At the outset it is humbly submitted by Ld. Counsel for the appellant that the appellant does not want to challenge the conviction part and hence I confirm the said part of the impugned order dt. 05.06.08.
5. However, the main grievances of the appellant is targeted towards the part of sentence. It is humbly submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that appellant is a poor man and only earning member of his family and is the first offender and has not been involved in any other case. It is further added by Ld. Counsel for the appellant that the appellant has already remained under -:4:- C.A. NO. 27/08 Aslam Vs. State confinement from 05.06.08 to 11.06.08. It is also added by the Ld. counsel that the appellant will not indulge in any such activities in future and will live properly. Thus, Ld. Counsel for the appellant urged for taking lenient consideration. Ld. APP, however, submitted that appropriate order may be passed.
6. Considering the aforesaid submission from both the sides and nature of offence for which appellant was found convicted on his voluntarily pleading guilty, I consider it expedient in the interest of justice to modify the sentence of confinement of the appellant, for the period as already undergone by him and it is ordered accordingly.
7. The net result is that while maintaining the conviction part, the sentence part relating to the impugned order dt. 05.06.08 stand modified in the light of the -:5:- C.A. NO. 27/08 Aslam Vs. State aforesaid observation and this appeal is allowed to the said extent.
8. Let a copy of this order along with the TCR be transmitted to the court of concerned Ld. M.M. and after doing the needful by the Ahlmad of this court, this case file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (B. R. KEDIA) 19th August, 2008. Addl. Sessions Judge Tis Hazari Courts Delhi.