Delhi District Court
State vs Sahil on 27 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-01
KKD COURTS, DELHI.
TITLE: : State v Sahil
FIR NO. : 29/2026
P.S. : Mayur Vihar
CNR NO. : DLET020116082026
Date of commission of offence : 23.01.2026
Name of Informant/complainant : Ct. Ajay
Name of accused : Sahil
Offence/s complained of : s. 12/9/55 Delhi Public Gambling Act, 1955
Cognizance under section/s : s. 12/9/55 Delhi Public Gambling Act, 1955
Charges framed under section/s : s. 12 Delhi Public Gambling Act, 1955
Plea of the Accused : Not Guilty
Date of hearing Final Arguments: : 27.03.2026
Date of pronouncement : 27.03.2026
Final Order : Acquittal
For the Prosecution : Ld. APP
For the Defence : Sh. Shivang Goel(LADC)
Present : Pritu Raj Digitally
signed by
J.MFC.- 01, PRITU PRITU RAJ
KKD Courts, Delhi. RAJ
Date:
2026.03.27
17:11:42
+0530
FIR No.29/2026 State v. Sahil Page 1 / 13
JUDGEMENT
1. The accused Sahil is facing trial for offences u/s 12 Delhi Public Gambling Act, 1955.
2. Stated succinctly, the facts germane for the case of the prosecution are that on 23.01.2026 at around 06:55 PM at 30 Block, near Chhota Park, Trilok Puri, ac- cused alongwith co-accused(not apprehended) were gaming with the help of playing cards, currency, note book, pen and committed offence u/s 12 Delhi Public Gambling Act.
3. On the written application of the informant, SHO P.S. Mayur Vihar registered, in relation to the above incident, a FIR no. 29/2026 on 23.01.2026 and, after investigation, submitted the charge sheet on 07.03.2026 against the aforemen- tioned accused person u/s 12 Delhi Public Gambling Act. Cognizance was taken on 07.03.2026 and provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with on 07.03.2026.
4. Charges u/s 12 Delhi Public Gambling Act were framed and read over to the accused, in Hindi, on 27.03.2026 to which he denied the incident and claimed to be tried.
Digitally
signed by
PRITU RAJ
PRITU Date:
RAJ 2026.03.27
17:11:55
+0530
FIR No.29/2026 State v. Sahil Page 2 / 13
5. The prosecution, in order to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt, exam- ined two witnesses in support of its case during the course of trial.
6. Evidence on behalf of the prosecution was closed vide order dated 27.03.2026 and the accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 27.03.2026 wherein he chose not to lead DE. The matter was fixed for Judgement vide order of same date.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
7. The primary issue to be decided in the present case is whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
8. On a perusal of the oral and documentary evidence/arguments led by the pros- ecution, the following observation emerge:
9. In the present case, no public witness has been examined on behalf of the pros- ecution in order to assuage its claim. The recovery is alleged to have been done near a busy spot i.e. 30 Block, near Chhota Park, Trilok Puri, as envis- aged also from the site map, and as per the examination of PW-2, public per- sons were be readily available at the time when the accused was apprehended, Digitally signed by however, they were not included as witnesses in the investigation. PRITU PRITU RAJ Date:
RAJ 2026.03.27
17:12:18
+0530
FIR No.29/2026 State v. Sahil Page 3 / 13
10. Moreover, while PW-2 has stated in his examination-in-chief that he had asked some persons to join the investigation but no one joined the investigation. From a perusal of the record, no serious effort for joining public witnesses ap- pears to have been made. There is nothing on record to show that PW 2 had served any notice u/s 179 BNSS on the public persons who were present at the time when the seizure was effected. The failure to make conscious and serious efforts to give adequate notice to public witnesses is amplified in view of the statuary duty which is imposed u/s 103 BNSS to call upon two respectable per- sons of the locality to join the search. However, no such notice was served, thereby raising a doubt on the case of the prosecution.
11. Reliance in this regard is placed on paragraph 6 of the judgment in Pawan Ku- mar v. Delhi Administration 1989 Cri.L.J. 127, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had observed as under:
" ... According to Jagbir Singh, he did not join any public witness in the case while according to Kalam Singh, no public person was present there. It hardly stands to reason that at a place like a bus stop near Subhas Bazar, there would be no person present at a crucial time like 07.30 p.m. when there is a lot of rush of commuters for boarding the buses to their re- spective destinations. Admittedly, there is no impediment in believing the version of the Police officials but for that the prosecution has to lay a good foundation. At least one of them should deposed that they tried to contact the public witnesses or that they refused to join the investigation. Here is a case where no effort was made to join any public witness even though num- ber of them were present. No plausible explanation from the side of the prosecution is forthcoming for not joining the independent witnesses in a case of serious nature like the present one. It may be that there is an apa- thy on the part of the general public to associate themselves with the Police Digitally signed by FIR No.29/2026 State v. Sahil Page 4 / 13 PRITU PRITU RAJ Date:
RAJ 2026.03.27 17:12:45 +0530 raids or the recoveries but that apart, at least the I.O. should have made an earnest effort to join the independent witnesses. No attempt in this direc- tion appears to have been made and this, by itself, is a circumstance throw- ing doubt on the arrest or the recovery of the knife from the person of the accused."
12. The same has been reiterated in "Anoop Joshi Vs. State" 1992(2) C.C. Cases 314(HC), wherein it had been observed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as un- der:
"18. It is repeatedly laid down by this Court in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join indepen- dent witnesses. In the present case, it is evidence that no such sincere ef- forts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shopkeepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an of- fence under the IPC".
13. Similarly, in "Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Punjab" 1997 (3) Crime 55 the Punjab & Haryana High Court had observed as under:
"5. In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have'. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the ac- cused". "6. In the present case, the State examined two witnesses namely, Harbans Singh ASI who appeared as PW1 and Kartar Singh, PW2. Both the witnesses supported the prosecution version in terms of the recovery of opium from the person of the petitioner, but there was no public witness who had joint. It is not necessary in such recoveries that public witnesses must be joined, but attempt must be made to join the public witnesses. There can be cases when public witnesses are reluctant to join or are not available. All the same, the prosecution must show a genuine attempt hav- ing been made to join a public witness or that they were not available. A stereotype statement of nonavailability will not be sufficient particularly PRITU FIR No.29/2026 State v. Sahil Page 5 / 13 RAJ Digitally signed by PRITU RAJ Date: 2026.03.27 17:12:54 +0530 when at the relevant time, it was not difficult to procure the service of pub- lic witness. This reflects adversely on the prosecution version".
14. This Court is, however, conscious that the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on the sole ground of non-joining of public witnesses as public witnesses keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable, as has been held in Appabhai and another v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696. However, in the present case, it is not only the absence of public wit- nesses which raises a doubt on the prosecution but there are other circum- stances too, as discussed hereinafter, which raise suspicion over the prosecu- tion version.
15. Moreover, the arrival and departure entry in the present case has not been proved in the present case which is a statutory duty on the police offi- cials. It would be prudent to reproduce Chapter 22 Rule 49 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, which reads as under:
"22.49 Matters to be entered in Register No. II
- The following matters shall, amongst others, be entered:
(c) The hour of arrival and departure on duty at or from a police station of all enrolled police officers of whatever rank, whether posted at the police station or elsewhere, with a statement of the nature of their duty. This entry shall be made immediately on arrival or prior to the departure of the offi-
cer concerned and shall be attested by the latter personally by signature or seal.
Note: The term Police Station will include all places such as Police Lines and Police Posts where Register No. II is maintained."
16. In the present case, the non-proof of departure and arrival entry assumes more significance in view of the fact that no public person was portrayed as a Digitally signed by FIR No.29/2026 State v. Sahil Page 6 / 13 PRITU PRITU RAJ Date:
RAJ 2026.03.27
17:13:02
+0530
witness on behalf of the prosecution. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to a case law reported as "Rattan Lal Vs. State" 1987 (2) Crimes 29, wherein the Delhi High Court has observed that if the investigating agency de- liberately ignores to comply with the provisions of the Act, the courts will have to approach their action with reservations & thus the matter has to be viewed by the court with suspicion, if the necessary provisions of law are not strictly complied with and then it can at least be said that it was so done with an oblique motive. This failure of the prosecution to bring on record & prove the relevant DD entry as discussed above creates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution version and attributes oblique motive on to the actions of the members of the raiding party.
17. PW 1 has deposed in his examination-in-chief that the case property was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-01/B and subsequently, the FIR was lodged. Hence it becomes apparent that the seizure memo was prepared prior to the lodging of FIR. However, interestingly, the said seizure memo contains the FIR number. There appears to be material contradiction between the version of incidents stated by the witnesses of the prosecution and creates a reasonable doubt in the version of the story sought to be proved by the prosecution that the seizure memo was bearing the FIR no. prior to its lodging. The same is fa- tal for the case of the prosecution and reliance here is placed on the decision of Digitally signed by PRITU PRITU RAJ Date:
RAJ 2026.03.27
17:13:10
+0530
FIR No.29/2026 State v. Sahil Page 7 / 13
the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Pawan Kumar v. The Delhi Administra- tion, 1989 Cri. L.J. 127, wherein it was observed in paragraph 5 as under:
"... Learned counsel for the State concedes that immediately after the ar- rest of the accused, his personal search was effected and the memo Ex. PW11/D was prepared. Thereafter, the sketch plan of the knife was pre- pared in the presence of the witnesses. After that, the ruqa EX. PW11/F was sent to the Police Station for the registration of the case on the basis of which the FIR, PW11/G was recorded. The F.I.R. is numbered as 36, a copy of which was sent to the I.O. after its registration. It comes to that the number of F.I.R. 36 came to the knowledge of the I.O. after a copy of it was delivered to him at the spot by a constable. In the normal circumstances, the F.I.R. No. should not find mention in the recovery memo or the sketch plan which had come into existence before the registration of the case. However, from the perusal of the recovery memo, I find that the FIR is mentioned whereas the sketch plan does not show the number of the FIR. It is not explained as to how and under what circumstances the recovery memo came to bear the F.I.R. No. which had already come into existence before the registration of the case. These are few of the circumstances which create a doubt, in my mind, about the genuineness of the weapon of offence alleged to have been recovered from the accused."
18. Similarly, in paragraph 4 of Mohd. Hashim v. State, 1999 VI AD (De- lhi) 569, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed:
"... Surprisingly, the secret information (Ex. PW7/A) received by the Sub- Inspector Narender Kumar Tyagi (PW-7), the notice under Section 50 of the Act (Ex. PW5/A) alleged to have been served on the appellant, the seizure memo (Ex. PW1/A) and the report submitted under State v. Om Prakash Section 57 of the Act (Ex. PW7/D) bear the number of the FIR (Ex. PW4/B). The number of the FIR (Ex. PW4/B) given on the top of the aforesaid documents is in the same ink and in the same handwriting, which clearly indicates that these documents were prepared at the same time. The prosecution has not offered any explanation as to under what circumstance number of the FIR (Ex. PW4/B) had appeared on the top of the aforesaid documents, which were allegedly prepared on the spot. This gives rise to two inferences that either the FIR (Ex. PW4/B) was recorded prior to the alleged recovery of the contraband or number of the said FIR was inserted in these documents after its registration. In both the situations, it seriously Digitally signed by FIR No.29/2026 State v. Sahil Page 8 / 13 PRITU PRITU RAJ Date:
RAJ 2026.03.27
17:13:19
+0530
reflects upon the veracity of the prosecution version and creates a good deal of doubt about recovery of the contraband in the manner alleged by the prosecution."
19. In the instant case as well, no explanation has been furnished on record as to how the FIR number and case details have appeared on the seizure memo Ex. PW-01/B. The same leads to inference that either the said documents were pre- pared later or that the FIR had been registered earlier in point of time. In both the aforesaid cases a dent is created and unexplained holes are left in the prose- cution story, the benefit of which must accrue to the accused.
20. Moreover, anywhere in the rukka, it is not mentioned that after the apprehen- sion of the accused persons, but before taking the formal/casual search of the accused persons, the police officials including the members of the raiding party, any of them had offered their own search to the accused persons, mean- ing thereby, that it has not been proved on record that the said police officials, who had effected the apprehension of the accused persons had offered them- selves for search by the accused persons or to any other member of public be- fore conducting the search of the accused persons so as to obviate the possibil- ity of the planting of the case property on to the accused persons.
21. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to the judgment of Orissa High Court reported as "Rabindernath Prusty Vs. State of Orissa"
Digitally signed by wherein it was held as under: PRITU PRITU RAJ Date:
RAJ 2026.03.27
17:13:26
+0530
FIR No.29/2026 State v. Sahil Page 9 / 13
"10. The next part of the prosecution case is relating to the search and re- covery of Rs. 500/ from the accused. One of the formalities that has to be observed in searching a person in that the searching Officer and others as- sisting him should give their personal search to the accused before search- ing the person of the accused. (See AIR 1969 SC 53 : (1969 Cri. L.J. 279), State of Bihar Vs. Kapil Singh). This rule is meant to avoid the possibility of implanting the object which was brought out by the search. There is no evidence on record whatsoever that the raiding party gave their personal search to the accused before the latter's person was searched. Besides the above, it is in the evidence of PWs 2 & 5 that the accused wanted to know the reason for which his person was to be searched and the reason for such search was not intimated to the accused. No independent witness had wit- nessed the search. In the above premises, my conclusion is that the search was illegal and consequently the conviction based thereon is also vitiated".
22. In view of the above observations and discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution had failed to discharge its burden of proving its case against the accused. It is well settled that the burden which lies on the prosecution is to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt and not merely on the preponderance of probabilities. The case of the prosecution must stand on its own two legs. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment ti- tled as "S.L.Goswami v. State of M.P" reported as 1972 CRI.L.J.511(SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:-
"...... In our view, the onus to proving all the ingredients of an offence is al- ways upon the prosecution and at no stage does it shift to the accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in cases where the defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is pal- pably false that burden does not become any the less. It is only when this burden is discharged that it will be for the accused to explain or controvert the essential elements in the prosecution case, which would negative it. It is not however for the accused even at the initial stage to prove something which has to be eliminated by the prosecution to establish the ingredients of the offence with which he is charged, and even if the onus shifts upon the accused and the accused has to establish his plea, the standard of proof is not the same as that which rests upon the prosecution..........................."
Digitally FIR No.29/2026 State v. Sahil Page 10 / 13 PRITU signed by PRITU RAJ Date:
RAJ 2026.03.27
17:13:32
+0530
23. In view of the above observations and discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution had failed to discharge its burden of proving its case against the accused. It is well settled that the burden which lies on the prosecution is to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt and not merely on the preponderance of probabilities. The case of the prosecution must stand on its own two legs. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment ti- tled as "S.L.Goswami v. State of M.P" reported as 1972 CRI.L.J.511(SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:-
"...... In our view, the onus to proving all the ingredients of an offence is al- ways upon the prosecution and at no stage does it shift to the accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in cases where the defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is pal- pably false that burden does not become any the less. It is only when this burden is discharged that it will be for the accused to explain or controvert the essential elements in the prosecution case, which would negative it. It is not however for the accused even at the initial stage to prove something which has to be eliminated by the prosecution to establish the ingredients of the offence with which he is charged, and even if the onus shifts upon the accused and the accused has to establish his plea, the standard of proof is not the same as that which rests upon the prosecution..........................."
24. The onus and duty to prove the case against the accused is upon the prosecution and the prosecution must establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It is also a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that if there is a reasonable doubt with regard to the guilt of the accused the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the accused. Reference may also be made to the judgment titled as Nallapati Sivaiah v. Sub Divisional Officer, Digitally signed by PRITU PRITU Guntur reported as VIII(2007) SLT 454(SC).
RAJ Date:
RAJ 2026.03.27 17:13:39 +0530 FIR No.29/2026 State v. Sahil Page 11 / 13
25. The accused Sahil S/o Sh. Subhash is hereby acquitted of the offence punish- able under U/s 12 Delhi Public Gambling Act, 1955
26. Case property be confiscated as per rules.
27. File be consigned to record room.
This judgment contains 13 pages and each page has been duly signed by the undersigned. Digitally signed by PRITU PRITU Date:
RAJ RAJ 2026.03.27 17:13:51 +0530 Announced in open Court (PRITU RAJ) on 27th March 2026 Judicial Magistrate-01 East, KKD Courts, Delhi.FIR No.29/2026 State v. Sahil Page 12 / 13
APPENDIX (as per directions of Hon'ble Supreme court of India in Manojbhai Parmar vs. State of Gujarat, 2025 INSC 1433) CHART FOR WITNESSES EXAMINED Prosecution witness Name of witness Description no.
PW-01 Ct. Ajay Complainant
PW-02 HC Satender Kumar IO
CHART FOR EXHIBITED DOCUMENTS
Exhibit. No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by /attested by
Ex.PW-01/A Statement of complainant PW-01
Ex.PW-01/B Seizure Memo PW-01
Ex.PW-01/C Site Plan PW-01
Ex.PW-01/D Disclosure statement PW-01
Ex.P1(Colly) Case Property PW-01
Ex.PW-02/A Rukka PW-02
Digitally
signed by
PRITU RAJ
PRITU Date:
RAJ 2026.03.27
17:14:00
+0530
FIR No.29/2026 State v. Sahil Page 13 / 13