Delhi District Court
Trilok Nath vs State on 20 November, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. DHARMESH SHARMA,
ASJ01, NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE
COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 99/2013
Trilok Nath .... APPELLANT
Vs.
STATE .... RESPONDENT
APPEARANCE
Mr. M.H.Ansari, Advocate for the appellant
Mr. Salim Khan, Ld. APP for the state
20.11.2013
JUDGMENT :
1. This Judgment shall decide an appeal filed under Section 34 of the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred as in the Act), enforced in Delhi r/w Section 374(3) & 375 of Cr. P. C. The appellant challenges an order dated 03.09.2013 passed by Sh. D.R.Sehgal, Ld. Special Magistrate, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, whereby on a plea of guilt taken by the appellant and on its acceptance, the appellant was convicted u/s 5 (5) of Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959 and was sentenced to be kept in a certified institution for a period of one year.
2. Suffice to state that appellant was allegedly found begging from passer byes on 03.09.2013 at about 10:25 a.m at Hanuman Mandir, Connought Place, New Delhi and was also found in possession of Rs. 250/ in the form of coins and currency notes of different denominations when he was arrested by ASI Arvind. Notice of accusation as per Section 251 Cr.P.C. was given to the appellant to which he pleaded guilty and accepted his guilt. At the cost of repetition, the appellant was convicted and was directed to be kept in a certified institution.
3. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present appeal is filed on the grounds that the particulars of the offence were not explained to the appellant and the appellant was not apprised about the consequences of accepting his guilt; and the order has been passed in a routine or mechanical manner and he has been convicted and sentenced in an arbitrary manner.
4. I have heard Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and Ld. Counsel for the appellants. I have also perused the Trial Court Record.
5. The Social Investigation Report reveals that the appellant is about 70 years of age hailing from Village Papa Nagar, Old Faridabad, Haryana and that appellant had been residing in Delhi; that his entire family has died in an accident and although initially he was running a small tea vendor business, since he has been left alone in his world, he has been living on the earnings of begging.
6. Without much ado, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained in law. It is borne out from the Trial Court Record that the appellant was not provided legal aid at the time plea of guilt was recorded. The notice of accusation that was put to the accused appears to be taken on a cyclostyled proforma on which plea of guilt has been recorded by the Ld. Trial Court.
7. It manifestly appears that the appellant was not explained the nature of accusation in vernacular nor he was warned of the consequences of his accepting the plea of guilt and the exact words of the appellant in vernacular were not recorded. The proceedings that were conducted by the Special Magistrate were mechanically done throwing all legal norms to the wind and the same cannot be sustained in law. Reference can be had to decision in Suk Das & Anr. v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, AIR 1986, SC 991.
8. Assuming for the sake of convenience that appellant was indeed indulging in begging, there is nothing to discern that he was a professional begger and the fact that his entire family has been wiped out in the incident has left him in a continuous state of misery and probably at certain stage of his life appellant was left with no option but to survive somehow in his old age. The appellant now appears with the kith and kin of his real brothers from the native place and it appears that he is unlikely to engage in the acts of begging again. Reference can be had to decision in Ram Lakhan v. State, Crl. Revision No. 784/2006 decided by the High Court of Delhi, New Delhi on 05.12.2006 and, therefore, his continuous detention for a year cannot be justified.
9. In the said view of the discussion, the impugned judgment dated 03.09.2013 is hereby set aside. The appellant is set free. His bail bond is cancelled and surety is discharged.
10. The Trial Court Record be sent back along with a copy of this order.
11. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (DHARMESH SHARMA)
TODAY i.e 20.11.2013 ASJ01/PHC/NEW DELHI
20.11.2013
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 99/2013
TRILOK NATH .... APPELLANT
VS.
STATE .... RESPONDENT
20.11.2013
APPEARANCE
Mr. M.H.Ansari, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Salim Khan, Ld. APP for the state Vide separate judgment of even date, the impugned judgment dated 03.09.2013 is set aside. The appellant is set free. His bail bond is cancelled and surety is discharged.
The Trial Court Record be sent back along with a copy of this order. File be consigned to Record Room.
(DHARMESH SHARMA) ASJ01/PHC/NEW DELHI 20.11.2013