Delhi District Court
State vs Lalit Kumar on 28 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-02,
DISTRICT EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Ms. Prerna Rai, DJS
State Vs. LALIT KUMAR
CNR No.: DLET020047432018
FIR No. 81/2018
PS. Geeta Colony
U/s. 3/4/9/55 of the Delhi Public Gambling Act, 1955
JUDGMENT
1) CR Case number of the case : 2446/2018
2) The date of commission of offence : 09.03.2018
3) The name of the complainant : Sub-Inspect Yaspal Singh
4) The name & parentage of accused : (1) Lalit Kumar S/o Sh.
Omparkash Singh R/o H. No. 9/67, Geeta Colony, Delhi (already convicted vide order dated 06.08.2019).
(2) Amit Kumar S/o Sh.
Omparkash Sharma FIR No.671/2014 State vs. Vijay Page 1 of 16 Digitally signed by PRERNA PRERNA RAI RAI Date:
2026.03.28 16:20:05 +0530 R/o H. No. 7/116, Geeta Colony, Delhi (already convicted vide order dated 06.08.2019).
(3) Vijay S/o Sh.
Ramkapoor, R/o H. No. B-31, Rani Garden, Shastri Nagar, Delhi.
5) Offence involved : 3/4/9/55 of the
Delhi Public
Gambling Act,
1955
6) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7) Final order : Accused Vijay
Kumar is hereby
acquitted of the
offences
punishable under
Sections 3 and 4
of the Delhi
Public Gambling
Act, 1955 by
extending the
benefit of doubt.
8) The date of such order : 28.03.2026
Date of Institution : 03.07.2018
Judgment reserved on : 24.03.2026
FIR No.671/2014 State vs. Vijay Page 2 of 16
Digitally
signed by
PRERNA
PRERNA RAI
RAI Date:
2026.03.28
16:20:05
+0530
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:-
01. It is the case of the prosecution that on 09.03.2018 at about 6:30 PM at premises bearing no. 2A/27, First Floor, Geeta Colony, Delhi, the accused Vijay Kumar along with co-accused persons Amit and Lalit (already convicted vide order dated 06.08.2019) was allegedly found using the said premises as a common gaming house. During the raid, 7 mobile phones, diaries, slips, a calculator and Rs. 8110/- were allegedly recovered.
Charge
02. Upon completion of the investigation the instant charge-sheet for the offence punishable under Section 3/4/9/55 of Delhi Gambling Act was filed by the Investigating Officer against the accused persons. Consequently, the said accused persons were summoned by this Court. However, during the trial of the present case, co-accused persons namely Amit and Lalit had already pleaded guilt and has been convicted vide order dated 06.08.2019. Thereafter, in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. was made and thereafter the charge for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Delhi Public Gambling Act, 1955, and in the alternative under Section 4 of the said Act was framed against accused Vijay to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution Evidence
03. To substantiate its case, prosecution has got examined four witnesses in the case.
FIR No.671/2014 State vs. Vijay Page 3 of 16
Digitally
signed by
PRERNA
PRERNA RAI
RAI Date:
2026.03.28
16:20:03
+0530
04. Prosecution Witness No. 1 SI Yashpal Singh (Complainant / Initial Investigating Officer) who deposed that on 09.03.2018 at about 05:15 PM, while he was present in the area of his jurisdiction, a secret informer met him near Ramlila Park and informed that betting (satta) on a cricket match between Multan Sultan vs. Lahore Kalandars was being conducted at a particular place. He further deposed that after verifying the information, he returned to the police station and informed the SHO, who directed him to conduct a raid. Thereafter, he prepared an application under Section 5 of the Delhi Public Gambling Act and sent Ct. Vikas to the office of DCP to obtain permission. PW-1 further stated that he constituted a raiding party consisting of ASI Ridku Singh, HC Yashveer, Ct. Pradeep Lathar and Ct. Vikas. They reached near Tanga Stand, Jheel Chowk and requested some public persons to join the investigation, but none agreed. At about 06:20 PM, Ct. Vikas returned with permission from the DCP. Thereafter, the raiding party along with secret informer reached the premises i.e. House No. 2A/27, First Floor, Geeta Colony. The door was pushed open and they entered the room where three persons were found present. PW-1 further deposed that:
• One person (Anil) was watching the cricket match on a mobile phone, • Second person (Lalit) was writing in a diary, • Third person (Vijay) was holding receipts and using a calculator.
They apprehended all three accused persons. Upon inquiry, they disclosed their names.
PW-1 further deposed that:
• One mobile phone displaying live match was seized vide FIR No.671/2014 State vs. Vijay Page 4 of 16 Digitally signed by PRERNA PRERNA RAI RAI Date:
2026.03.28 16:20:04 +0530 memo Ex. PW1/A, • Six other mobile phones were seized vide memo Ex. PW1/B, • One pocket diary, one old diary, 08 receipts, one calculator and Rs. 8110/- were seized and sealed in a pullanda with seal "GC-15" vide memo Ex. PW1/C. He prepared rukka Ex. PW1/D and sent Ct. Vikas for registration of FIR. After registration, ASI Subhash Chand reached the spot and further investigation was handed over to him. PW-1 identified the accused in Court and also identified the case property i.e. mobile phone (Ex. P1), and other articles (Ex. P2 colly) including currency notes, diaries, slips and calculator. He also identified photographs of mobile phones and screenshots (Ex. P3 and Ex. P4 colly).
Thereafter, PW1 SI Yashpal Singh was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel and during his cross-examination PW1 admitted that:
• No public person was joined and their details were not recorded.
• No DD entry was made regarding sending application to DCP.
• No personal search of accused persons was conducted by him.
• No independent verification of slips and diaries was conducted.
• No call details of mobile phones were obtained. • No audio/video recording of raid was done. • Slips did not contain names, phone numbers or identifying details.
• One mobile phone was kept unsealed.
FIR No.671/2014 State vs. Vijay Page 5 of 16
Digitally
signed by
PRERNA
PRERNA RAI
RAI Date:
2026.03.28
16:20:04
+0530
He denied the suggestion that recovery was planted or that accused was falsely implicated.
05. Prosecution Witness No. 2: HC Vikas (Member of Raiding Party) PW-2 deposed that on 09.03.2018, SI Yashpal handed over to him an application under Section 5 of the Gambling Act and directed him to obtain permission from the DCP office. He stated that he went to the DCP office, obtained permission and returned to the spot at about 06:15 PM. Thereafter, he along with raiding party proceeded to the premises and entered the room where three persons were found betting on a cricket match using mobile phones. He corroborated the version of PW-1 regarding apprehension of accused persons and recovery of:
• Mobile phones,
• Diaries and slips,
• Cash amount of Rs. 8110/-.
He further deposed that case property was seized vide memos Ex. PW1/A, PW1/B and PW1/C. Thereafter, rukka was handed over to him and he went to the police station, got FIR registered and returned to the spot with ASI Subhash Chand. He also deposed regarding arrest and personal search of accused persons vide memos Ex. PW2/A to PW2/F. He identified the accused and case property.
Thereafter, PW2 HC Vikas was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel and during his cross-examination PW2 admitted that:
• He does not remember the diary number of permission obtained.
• Permission was obtained within a very short time. • No public witness was joined.
FIR No.671/2014 State vs. Vijay Page 6 of 16
Digitally
signed by
PRERNA
PRERNA RAI
RAI Date:
2026.03.28
16:20:03
+0530
• No audio/video recording was conducted. • No specimen handwriting or signatures of accused were taken.
• No CDR or verification of mobile numbers was done. • He does not remember which accused was searched first. • He cannot specify from whom the money was recovered. • No identification marks were placed on case property. He denied the suggestion of false implication.
06. Prosecution Witness No. 3: HC Monika (Formal Witness - DCP Office) PW-3 produced the record pertaining to permission under Section 5 of the Delhi Public Gambling Act. She deposed that the warrant/permission was issued by the then DCP and proved the same as Ex. PW3/A. She also produced copy of the permission (Mark X) and request letter (Mark-1).
Thereafter, PW3 HC Monika was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel and during his cross-examination PW2 admitted that:
• The permission documents do not mention the time. • She did not bring record of dispatch of permission. • Only Inspector was authorized for conducting search. She denied the suggestion that documents were ante-dated or fabricated.
07. Prosecution Witness No. 4: ASI Subhash Chand (Second Investigating Officer) He deposed that after registration of FIR, investigation was marked to him. He reached the spot along with Ct. Vikas and met SI Yashpal, who handed over accused persons, case property and FIR No.671/2014 State vs. Vijay Page 7 of 16 Digitally signed by PRERNA PRERNA RAI RAI Date:
2026.03.28 16:20:03 +0530 documents. He prepared site plan Ex. PW4/A and recorded statements of witnesses. He arrested the accused persons vide arrest memos and conducted their personal search vide memos already exhibited. He further deposed that accused persons were released on police bail and case property was deposited in malkhana. After completion of investigation, he filed the charge-sheet. He identified the accused in Court.
Thereafter, PW4 ASI Subhash Chand was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel and during his cross-examination PW4 admitted that:
• He did not revisit the spot after the incident. • No notice was served to any public person. • No CCTV footage was collected.
• No videography of proceedings was conducted. • No handwriting sample of accused was taken. • No recovery was effected during personal search. • He did not record details such as clothes worn by accused. He denied the suggestion that investigation was false or fabricated.
Admission/Denial of documents u/Sec. 294 Cr.P.C.
08. During the course of trial, Statement of accused Vijay was recorded u/Sec. 294 Cr.P.C. for the purpose of admission and denial of documents relied upon by the prosecution. The accused admits the factum of registration of FIR alongwith the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. However, he specifically clarified that such admission is only to the extent of formal proof and does not amount to admission of the contents thereof. The said FIR alongwith certificate u/Sec. 65B of Indian Evidence Act was accordingly exhibited as Ex.P-1.
FIR No.671/2014 State vs. Vijay Page 8 of 16
Digitally
signed by
PRERNA
PRERNA RAI
RAI Date:
2026.03.28
16:20:04
+0530
Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
09. Statement of accused Vijay Kumar was recorded u/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. on 24.02.2026 wherein all incriminating evidence appearing against him on record was put to him. The accused responded that he was innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He denied all the allegations made by the prosecution and stated that he was neither running any gambling activity nor was he involved in any betting on the alleged date, time and place. He further stated that no illegal or incriminating articles were recovered from his possession and the alleged recovery shown by the police officials was false and fabricated. He submitted that the case property has been planted upon him by the police officials with mala fide intention. He further stated that he was not engaged in any activity relating to gambling and has no connection with the alleged betting on cricket match as claimed by the prosecution.
10. As per the direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar (Rohit) Vs. State of Gujarat Crl. No. 2973 of 2023, dated December, 15, 2025, the list of witnesses and exhibited documents is also annexed with this judgment as Appendix-'A'.
11. I have heard arguments on behalf of the State as well as arguments advanced by Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused, and also perused the record.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS
12. The cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence is that the FIR No.671/2014 State vs. Vijay Page 9 of 16 Digitally signed by PRERNA PRERNA RAI RAI Date:
2026.03.28 16:20:05 +0530 prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proof always rests upon the prosecution and never shifts. The accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt arising from the evidence on record. Keeping these settled principles in mind, this Court proceeds to analyse the evidence led by the prosecution.
13. (A) Doubtful Seizure: A careful reading of the testimonies of PW-1 SI Yashpal and PW-2 HC Vikas reveals that the case property was seized vide seizure memos Ex. PW1/A, Ex. PW1/B and Ex. PW1/C at the spot, and thereafter, PW-2 proceeded to the police station for registration of FIR. Thus, it is evident that the seizure memos were prepared prior to the registration of FIR. In such circumstances, it is expected that the FIR number would not find mention on documents prepared before its registration. However, a perusal of the seizure memos shows that complete particulars of the FIR are mentioned therein. What is more significant is that the FIR number appears to have been written in the same continuity, handwriting and ink as the rest of the contents of the documents. There is no indication that the FIR number was inserted later or in a different manner. The prosecution has failed to offer any explanation as to how the FIR number came to be mentioned on documents allegedly prepared prior to registration of FIR. This unexplained circumstance creates a serious dent in the prosecution case and raises a strong suspicion regarding the genuineness of the recovery. At this stage, reference may be made to Lalit vs. State (Delhi Administration), 1989 Cri. L.J. 127, wherein it was observed that where FIR number appears on documents prepared prior to its registration and no explanation is forthcoming, it creates doubt regarding the authenticity of recovery. Similarly, in Mohd. Hashim FIR No.671/2014 State vs. Vijay Page 10 of 16 Digitally signed by PRERNA PRERNA RAI RAI Date:
2026.03.28 16:20:05 +0530 vs. State, 82 (1999) DLT 375, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that such circumstances give rise to an inference that either the FIR was recorded prior to the alleged recovery or the documents were prepared later, both of which seriously affect the credibility of the prosecution case. In the present case as well, either of the two inferences is possible, both of which are fatal to the prosecution. Further, the prosecution case is rendered doubtful due to the following additional factors:
• One mobile phone (Vivo) was found in an unsealed condition; • The recovery proceedings were neither videographed nor photographed;
• There is no clear mention of denomination of the currency at the initial stage.
These deficiencies cumulatively render the alleged recovery highly doubtful.
14. (B) Non-Joining of Independent/Public Witnesses: It is an admitted position that no independent public witness was joined at the time of raid or recovery, despite the fact that the alleged place of occurrence was a residential/locality area where public persons were readily available. The explanation furnished by the prosecution that public persons refused to join the investigation does not inspire confidence. The investigating officer neither recorded the names and addresses of such persons nor served any notice upon them. No action was taken against them for refusal to join the investigation. In Anoop Joshi vs. State, 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), it was held that the police must show that sincere efforts were made to join independent witnesses, and failure to do so casts doubt on the prosecution case. Section 100 Cr.P.C. also mandates FIR No.671/2014 State vs. Vijay Page 11 of 16 Digitally signed by PRERNA PRERNA RAI RAI Date:
2026.03.28 16:20:04 +0530 that independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality should be joined during search proceedings. Sub-section (8) thereof provides that refusal to join investigation without reasonable cause may attract penal consequences. Despite this statutory provision, no sincere effort appears to have been made in the present case. Though it is settled that non-joining of public witnesses is not by itself fatal (Appabhai vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696), in the present case, where the testimony of police witnesses itself is not wholly reliable, the absence of independent corroboration assumes great significance.
15. (C) Misuse of Seal and Possibility of Tampering: The prosecution has failed to establish that the seal used for sealing the case property was handed over to any independent person after use. There is no evidence to show that the seal was kept beyond the reach of the police officials involved in the investigation. In such circumstances, the possibility of tampering with the case property cannot be ruled out. In Safiullah vs. State, (1993) 49 DLT 193, it was observed that where the seal remains with the police officials, the possibility of tampering cannot be excluded and the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. Thus, the sanctity of the seized case property stands seriously compromised.
16. (D) Procedural Lapses and Non-Compliance of Mandatory Provisions: The prosecution case is further weakened by non-compliance of mandatory procedural safeguards. No Daily Diary (DD) entries regarding the departure of police officials from the police station or their arrival at the spot have been proved on record. As per Chapter 22 Rule 49 of the Punjab Police Rules, such entries are required to be mandatorily FIR No.671/2014 State vs. Vijay Page 12 of 16 Digitally signed by PRERNA PRERNA RAI RAI Date:
2026.03.28 16:20:05 +0530 recorded. The failure to produce such entries renders the presence of police officials at the spot doubtful and creates suspicion regarding the manner in which the investigation was conducted. These lapses raise the possibility that the proceedings may not have been conducted at the spot in the manner alleged and may have been carried out in a mechanical manner at the police station.
17. (E) Lack of Scientific and Corroborative Evidence: The prosecution has failed to bring on record any scientific or corroborative evidence to support its case:
• No call detail records (CDR) of the mobile phones were obtained;
• No forensic examination of mobile phones was conducted; • The screenshots placed on record do not conclusively establish gambling activity;
• The slips and diaries do not contain identifiable particulars such as names, phone numbers or signatures. Moreover, PW-1 admitted that no independent verification of the entries in the diaries or slips was conducted.
Thus, there is no reliable material to connect the accused with the alleged gambling activities.
18. (H) Contradictions and Omissions in Testimony: Material contradictions and omissions are apparent in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses:
• Witnesses failed to recall material particulars; • No clarity exists regarding roles of accused persons;
FIR No.671/2014 State vs. Vijay Page 13 of 16
Digitally
signed by
PRERNA
PRERNA RAI
RAI Date:
2026.03.28
16:20:04
+0530
• No link has been established between seized articles and the accused;
• Several important aspects of investigation were not carried out.
These inconsistencies further erode the credibility of the prosecution case.
19. (I) Cumulative Effect: The cumulative effect of the aforesaid deficiencies is that the prosecution case becomes highly doubtful. The lapses are not minor but go to the root of the matter and strike at the credibility of the prosecution version.
CONCLUSION
20. In light of the above detailed analysis, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence on record is insufficient, unreliable and suffers from serious infirmities, entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt.
21. Accordingly, accused Vijay Kumar is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Delhi Public Gambling Act, 1955 by extending the benefit of doubt.
22. Ordered accordingly.
Announced in open Court (Prerna Rai) on 28th of January, 2026 JMFC-02/East/KKD Courts/Delhi NOTE: This judgment contains 16 pages and each page has been signed by me.
FIR No.671/2014 State vs. Vijay Page 14 of 16
Digitally
signed by
PRERNA
PRERNA RAI
RAI Date:
2026.03.28
16:20:04
+0530
Appendix- 'A'
Specimen Chart for Witnesses Examined Prosecution Name of Witnesses Description Witnesses No. 1 Sub-Inspector Yashpal Singh Complainant / Initial Investigating Officer 2 Head Constable Vikas Police official/ Member of Raiding Party 3 Head Constable Monika Police official/Formal Witness - DCP Office) 4 Assistant Sub-Inspector Subhash Police official/ Chand (Second Investigating Officer) FIR No.671/2014 State vs. Vijay Page 15 of 16 Digitally signed by PRERNA PRERNA RAI RAI Date:
2026.03.28 16:20:05 +0530 Specimen Chart for Exhibited Documents Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested by Ex.PW1/A Seizure memo of mobile phone Ex.PW1/B Seizure memo of Six mobile phone Ex.PW1/C Seizure memo of case property i.e. Sub-Inspector pocket diary, 08 receipts, one old Yashpal diary, calculator and money sum of Rs. 8110/-
Ex.PW1/D Tehrir
Ex.PW2/A Arrest memo of accused persons
Ex.PW2/B namely Lalit Kumar, Amit and
Ex.PW2/C Vijay Head Constable
Ex.PW2/D Personal Search of accused persons Vikas
Ex.PW2/E namely Lalit Kumar, Amit and
Ex.PW2/F Vijay
Ex.PW3/A Warrant u/Sec. 5 of the Delhi Head Constable
Gambling Act, 1955 Monika
Ex.PW4/A Site Plan ASI Subhash
Ex.PW4/B to Police Bail granted to the accused Chand
Ex.PW4/D persons
Announced in open Court (Prerna Rai)
on 28th of January, 2026 JMFC-02/East/KKD Courts/Delhi
FIR No.671/2014 State vs. Vijay Page 16 of 16
Digitally
signed by
PRERNA
PRERNA RAI
RAI Date:
2026.03.28
16:20:03
+0530