Delhi District Court
State vs . Vicky on 14 November, 2018
FIR No. 2832017
P.S.: Patel Nagar
U/s.: 12/9/55 of Gambling Act
IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDRA SINGH, ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
State Vs. Vicky
FIR No.: 283-2017
P.S.: Patel Nagar
U/s.: 12/9/55 of Gambling Act
Case No. 3939-2018
1. Date of Commission of Offence : 06.09.2017
2. Date of institution of the case : 04.06.2018
3. Name of the complainant : Ct. Amit
4. Name of accused, parentage &
address. :Vicky S/o Late Kara Chand, R/o; T-
235, A-17, Baljeet Nagar, Delhi.
5. Offence complained or proved : 12/9/55 of Gambling Act.
6. Plea of Accused persons : Pleaded Not Guilty.
7. Final Order : Convicted.
9. Date of Final Order : 14.11.2018
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose off, the above captioned case bearing FIR No. 283-2017. The case of the prosecution is that on 06.09.2017 at about 9.00 pm at Sanjay Park, Baljeet Nagar, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Patel Nagar, accused was found gambling with paper slips and thereby accused had committed an offence punishable u/s. 12/9/55 of Gambling Act.
2. After the completion of the usual investigation and procedural requirements, the chargesheet was filed in the Court on 04.06.2018, whereafter cognizance of the offence was taken against the accused and 14.11.2018 Page 1 of 4 Pages FIR No. 2832017 P.S.: Patel Nagar U/s.: 12/9/55 of Gambling Act provisions of Section 207 Cr. P.C. was also complied.
3. After hearing the prosecution and the defence, notice under Section 251 Cr. P.C. for the offence under Section 12/9/55 of Gambling Act was framed against the accused, to which the accused pleaded "Not Guilty"
and claimed trial.
4. During the course of the trial, the prosecution had examined one witness. HC Vinod Kumar was examined as PW-1.
5. After the completion of the prosecution's evidence, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C., wherein the accused do not want to lead his defence evidence.
6. I have weighed the rival submissions made on behalf of the prosecution as well as on behalf of the defence in the light of the material appearing on record.
7. 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 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 persons.
8. It is no longer Res Integra that accused pesons are 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.
9. In the light of the above discussed legal position, I shall now step 14.11.2018 Page 2 of 4 Pages FIR No. 2832017 P.S.: Patel Nagar U/s.: 12/9/55 of Gambling Act forward to divulge my opinion on the respective fate of the accused.
10. PW-1 is HC Vinod KUmar, who deposed that on 06.09.2017, after receipt of DD No. 29-A regarding gambling, he reached at the spot i.e. Sanjay Park, Baljeet Nagar, Delhi, where complainant Ct. Amit met him and he produced one person before him and stated that the said person was gambling in the park. He further deposed that Ct. Amit also produced before him one register and some papers on which some numbers were mentioned and Rs. 210/-. He recorded the statement of the complainant Ex. PW1/A, bearing my signature at point A. He further deposed that he seized the recovered case property, vide memo Ex. PW1/B. Thereafter, he prepared the rukka Ex. PW1/C and got the case registered through Ct. Amit. After registration of the FIR, Ct. Amit returned and handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to him. He further deposed that he arrested the accused vide memo Ex. PW1/D and thereafter accused was released on bail.
The said witness was cross examined by the accused.
11. From the abovesaid testimony of PW1, who is the material witness in the instant matter proves that the accused had committed the offence u/s. 12/9/55 of Gambling Act. Despite cross examination of PW-1 nothing has been made out in favour of the accused. Thus the aforesaid cumulative and corroborating testimonies of witness clearly proves that the accused had committed the offence under Section 12/9/55 of Gambling Act.
DECISION
12. For the reasons assigned hereinabove, I am of the view that the prosecution has successfully proved the offence under Section 12/9/55 of Gambling Act against the accused. Accordingly, accused is convicted for the offence under Section 12/9/55 of Gambling Act.
13. The arguments on the point of sentence shall be heard separately 14.11.2018 Page 3 of 4 Pages FIR No. 2832017 P.S.: Patel Nagar U/s.: 12/9/55 of Gambling Act today itself.
14. A copy of this judgment be given to the accused free of cost.
Digitally signed Announced in the open court JITENDRA by JITENDRA SINGH SINGH Date: 2018.11.15 on 14.11.2018 16:23:59 +0530 (JITENDRA SINGH) ACMM/WEST/THC/ DELHI 14.11.2018 Page 4 of 4 Pages IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDRA SINGH
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : WEST TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI FIR No. 2832017 U/S. 12/9/55 of Gambling Act PS Patel Nagar State Vs. Vicky Case ID No. 39392018 ORDER ON POINT OF SENTENCE Present: Ld APP for state.
Convict is present 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 is the sole bread earner for his family. It is further submitted by the convict that he is not previous convict and he is first time offender. 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. 12/9/55 of Gambling Act. No previous conviction has State Vs. Vicky ; FIR No. 283-17; PS PN 2/2 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. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the convict is facing the trial for the commission of offence u/s. 12/9/55 of Gambling Act. Accordingly, accused is sentence to pay a fine of Rs.500/. SI for two days in default of fine. Fine paid. B/B and S/B stands discharged. Original, if any be returned after cancellation of endorsement. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Court JITENDRA SINGH
i.e. the 14rd November, 2018 ACMM:WEST DISTT:DELHI
State Vs. Vicky ; FIR No. 283-17; PS PN 2/2
State Vs. Vicky ; FIR No. 283-17; PS PN 2/2