Delhi District Court
State vs Pradeep on 24 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF VINOD KUMAR:
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS- 05 (SOUTH WEST)
DWARKA COURTS: DELHI
Digitally
signed by
VINOD
VINOD KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2026.04.24
State Vs. : Pradeep and Anr. 15:48:12
+0630
FIR No : 03/2026
U/s : 12/9/55 Delhi Public Gambling Act, 1955
P.S. : Vikas Puri
JUDGMENT
1. CIS No. of the Case : 2173/2026
2. Date of commission of offence : 31.12.2025
3. Date of institution of the case : 18.03.2026
4. Name of the complainant : HC Anil Kumar
5. Name and parentage of accused : 1. Pradeep s/o Late Sh. Deshraj
2. Pawan s/o Sh. Kailash
6. Offence complained off : u/s 12/9/55 Delhi Public Gambling
Act,
1955.
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Date on which order was reserved: 21.04.2026
9. Final order : Both the accused persons are acquitted
10. Date of final order : 24.04.2026
FIR No. 03/2026 P.S. Vikas Puri State Vs. Pradeep & Anr. Page 1 of 13
1. The accused persons are facing trial for offences under Section 12/9/55 Delhi Public Gambling Act, 1955. The genesis of the prosecution story is that on 31.12.2025 at 11:52 pm at PVR Parking behind Gupta Towers II Vikas Puri Delhi, within the jurisdiction of P.S. Vikas Puri , both accused persons were found engaged in the acts of gambling by way of Satta Parchi in public place thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 12/9/55 Delhi Public Gambling Act, 1955. At the complaint of complainant, the present case was registered and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the offences punishable under section 12/9/55 Delhi Public Gambling Act, 1955.
2. After going through the chargesheet and entire material available on record, cognizance was taken and the accused persons were summoned. Copy of charge sheet was supplied to them and on the basis of prima facie evidence, notice was framed against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 12/9/55 Delhi Public Gambling Act, 1955 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was led.
3. In order to prove allegations against accused persons , prosecution has examined two prosecution witnesses. The proceedings u/s 294 Cr.P.C. were conducted wherein accused admitted the factum of registration of FIR however they have denied the allegations made against them. No other witness has been examined by the prosecution. Prosecution evidence was closed. Statement of the accused persons were recorded under section 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C. Accused persons stated that they have falsely implicated in the present case. Accused persons had not lead any defence evidence. Thereafter, final arguments were heard at length.
4. Ld. APP for the State argued that the prosecution has proved its case against both the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. It is contended that the witnesses have given corroborative statements and the accused persons are liable to be convicted in this case.
FIR No. 03/2026 P.S. Vikas Puri State Vs. Pradeep & Anr. Page 2 of 135. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused persons has stated that there is no legally sustainable evidence against the accused persons and that the accused persons have been falsely implicated by the police officials and the recovery of alleged case property has been planted upon them. Arguing further, Ld. counsel has inter-alia submitted that no public witnesses were joined by the police officials during investigation. It is further argued that due to the lacunae and incoherency in the story of the prosecution, accused persons be given the benefit of doubt and are therefore, entitled to be acquitted.
6. Prior to delving into the merits of the contentions advanced on behalf of par- ties, let us briefly discuss the testimonies of the material prosecution witnesses.
(i) PW1 is HC Anil Kumar who deposed that on that day, he was posted at PS Vikas Puri as HC and while patrolling with PW-2 HC. Ram Kishan, when they reached at the spot, they saw two persons were playing cards and were betting money and they apprehended the said persons and found 46 playing cards along with total Rs.1040/- with them. He further deposed that the denomination of the currency notes were 100x7=700, 50x4=200, 20x5=100 and 10x4=40. He further deposed that the name of the accused persons was revealed as Pradeep and Pawan (accused persons in this case). He further deposed that the videography was done through E-Sakshya App. He further deposed that the case property was placed in a transparent plastic box and sealed with the seal of 'RK'. He further deposed that the seal after use was handed over to PW-2 HC Ram Kishan. He further deposed that the case property was seized vide seizure memo bearing his signatures and he prepared a tehrir and handed over the same to PW-2 HC Ram Kishan for registration of FIR and PW-2 HC Ram Kishan got the FIR registered and prepared the site plan bearing his signatures. He further deposed that he arrested accused persons Pradeep and Pawan vide arrest memos and personally searched Pradeep and Pawan vide search memos bearing his signatures.
He further deposed that he recorded disclosure statement of accused persons Pradeep and Pawan and he prepared the seal handing over memo bearing his signatures and FIR No. 03/2026 P.S. Vikas Puri State Vs. Pradeep & Anr. Page 3 of 13 recorded the statement of witnesses and prepared the charge-sheet and filed it before the Court. The witness correctly identified the case property and the accused persons in Court.
During cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons, he deposed that accused persons were arrested at PVR Parking behind Gupta-II, Vikaspuri at around 11.52 PM and no public person was present there.
(ii) PW2 is HC. Ram Kishan who deposed that on that day, he was posted as HC at PS Vikas Puri and at that time he alongwith PW-1 HC. Anil Kumar was on patrolling duty and when they reached PVR parking behind Gupta Tower-2, they saw two persons were playing cards and betting money and PW-1 HC Anil Kumar apprehended both the persons with his help and found 46 playing cards alongwith total Rs.1040/- from the possession of those persons. He further deposed that the denomination of cash amount was 100x7=700, 50x4=200, 20x5=100 and 10x4=40. He further deposed that the name of the accused persons was disclosed as Pradeep and Pawan (accused persons in this case). He further deposed that the videography of the seizure of case property was conducted by him through E-Sakshay App. He further deposed that thereafter, case property was placed in a transparent plastic box and sealed with the seal of 'RK' and thereafter, the seal after use was handed over to him. He further deposed that the case property was seized and tehrir was prepared by PW-1 HC Anil Kumar and the same was handed over to him for registration of FIR and he got the FIR registered and after that site plan was prepared by PW-1 IO/HC Anil Kumar in his presence bearing his signatures and accused persons Pradeep and Pawan were arrested by PW-1/IO HC Anil Kumar and personally searched vide memos bearing his signatures. Thereafter, IO had recorded disclosure statement of accused persons Pradeep and Pawan and prepared the seal handing over seal memo bearing his signatures and IO recorded his statement u/s 180 BNSS 2023. The witness correctly identified the case property and the accused persons in Court.
During cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons, he deposed that he had not personally received any information qua the incident and he got to know about the incident while, he was on patrolling duty when he reached at the spot, FIR No. 03/2026 P.S. Vikas Puri State Vs. Pradeep & Anr. Page 4 of 13 accused persons were playing cards and he alongwith PW-1/IO HC Anil nabbed both the accused persons.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND CONSEQUENT FINDINGS:
7. I have heard the rival contentions advanced by the prosecution and defence and have also gone through the case record carefully. Having discussed the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, now let us advert ourselves to the merits of the contentions advanced on behalf of the parties.
In order to prove the offences u/s 12 Delhi Public Gambling Act, the prosecution must establish the fulfilment of all the essential ingredients of the offence. The contents of Section 12 Delhi Public Gambling Act are reproduced as follows:
Section 12 Gaming and setting birds and animals to fight in public streets A police officer may apprehend without warrant any person found gaming in any public street, place or thoroughfare situated within the Union Territory of Delhi, or any person setting any birds or animals to fight in any public street, place or thoroughfare situated within the said Union Territory, or any person there present aiding and abetting such public fighting of birds and animals, such person when apprehended shall be brought without delay before a Magistrate and shall be liable to imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months and shall also be liable to a fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, and such police officer may seize all instruments of gaming found in such public street, place or thoroughfare on the person of those whom he shall so arrest, and the Magistrate may on conviction of the offender order such instruments to be forthwith destroyed.
i). Doubtful Seizure.
8. A careful reading of the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 reflects that PW-1 had seized the case property vide seizure memo at the spot and thereafter prepared tehrir and thereafter PW-2 was sent to police station for registration of FIR and FIR No. 03/2026 P.S. Vikas Puri State Vs. Pradeep & Anr. Page 5 of 13 subsequently, the FIR was registered and investigation was initiated by PW-1. The narration of such a chronology of events leads to the irresistible conclusion that the seizure memo of the case property was prepared at the spot prior to the registration of FIR and that the FIR was, therefore, admittedly registered after the preparation of the aforesaid document. Accordingly, it follows that the number of the FIR would have come to the knowledge of PW-1 only after the FIR was registered pursuant to the rukka prepared by him. Thus, ordinarily, the FIR number should not find mention in the seizure memo, which came into existence before registration of the FIR.
However, quite surprisingly, perusal of seizure memo reflects that full particulars of the FIR thereupon, which fact has remained unexplained on behalf of the prosecution. It is not even the case that the same, on the face of it, appears to have been written in separate ink or at some left over space. Rather, on the seizure memo, it appears to have been recorded in same continuity, handwriting and ink as rest of the contents of these documents. No explanation from the prosecution is forthcoming as to how the FIR number surfaced on a document which was prepared prior to the registration of the FIR. This fact casts a fatal doubt upon the case of prosecution.
9. At this stage, reference may be made to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Lalit v. The Delhi Administration, 1989 Cri. L.J. 127, wherein it was observed in paragraph 5 as follows:
"....Learned counsel for the state concedes that immediately after the arrest of the accused, his personal search was effected and the memo Ex.PW11/D was prepared. Thereafter, the sketch plan of the knife was prepared 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, PW 11/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."FIR No. 03/2026 P.S. Vikas Puri State Vs. Pradeep & Anr. Page 6 of 13
10. Similarly, in paragraph 4 of Mohd. Hashim vs State, 82 (1999) DLT 375, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed:
"...Surprisingly, the secret information (Ex. P.W. 7/A) received by the Sub- Inspector Narender Kumar Tyagi (P.W. 7), the notice under S. 50 of the Act (Ex. P.W. 5/A) alleged to have been served on the appellant, the seizure memo (Ex. P.W. 1/A) and the report submitted under S. 57 of the Act (Ex. P.W. 7/D) bear the number of the FIR (Ex. P.W. 4/B). The number of the FIR (Ex. P.W. 4/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 circumstances number of the FIR (Ex. P.W. 4/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. P.W. 4/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 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."
11. The aforesaid rulings of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi squarely apply to the facts in the present case as well, which leads to only one of the either inference, that is, either the FIR was registered prior to the alleged recovery of the case property, or that the said documents were prepared later in point of time. In either of the scenarios, a dent is created in the version of the prosecution, the benefit of which must accrue to the accused.
ii). The non-joining of any independent / public witness.
12. It is evident from the record that no public witnesses to the recovery of the recovery of case property have been either cited in the list of prosecution witnesses or have been examined by the prosecution. Admittedly, the alleged recovery is said to have been made at PVR cinema hall parking which is a busy public place but no explanation has come from IO as to why he did not join any public persons during the proceedings despite their availability. Admittedly, no notice was served to such public persons upon their refusal to join investigation in the case. Thus, it is not the case of prosecution that public witnesses were not available at the spot. However, from a perusal of the record, no serious effort for joining public witnesses appears to have FIR No. 03/2026 P.S. Vikas Puri State Vs. Pradeep & Anr. Page 7 of 13 been made by the investigating officer. These facts are squarely covered by the ruling of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled as, Anoop Joshi Vs. State" 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), wherein it was observed as under:
".........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 independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evidence that no such sincere efforts 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 offence under the IPC."
13. Further, in a case law reported as Roop Chand v. The State of Haryana, 1999 (1) C.L.R. 69, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held as under:
"........The recovery of illicit liquor was effected from the possession of the petitioner during noon time and it is in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that some witnesses from the public were available and they were asked to join the investigation. The explanation furnished by the prosecution is that the independent witnesses were asked to join the investigation but they refused to do so on the ground that their joining will result into enmity between them and the petitioner.
14. It is well settled principle of the law that the investigating agency should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of case property and their failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. A police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public the Investigating Officer can take action against such a person under the law. Had it been a fact that the witnesses from the public had refused to join the investigation, the IO must have proceeded against them under the relevant provision of law. The failure to do so by the police officer is suggestive of the fact that the explanation for non- joining the witnesses from the public is an after-thought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful."
15. In fact, in this regard, Section 100 of the Cr.P.C also accords assistance to the aforesaid finding, by providing that whenever any search is made, two or more FIR No. 03/2026 P.S. Vikas Puri State Vs. Pradeep & Anr. Page 8 of 13 independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality are required to be made witnesses to such search, and the search is to be made in their presence. Under Section 100(8) Cr.P.C, refusal to be a witness can render such non willing public witness liable for criminal prosecution. Despite the availability of such a provision, no sincere attempts were made by the police to join witnesses in the present case despite the spot being a public spot. Therefore, non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of law, even though public witnesses were easily available in the vicinity, makes the prosecution version highly doubtful.
16. This Court is conscious of the legal position that non-joining of independent witnesses cannot be the sole ground to discard or doubt the prosecution case, as has been held in Appabhai and another v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696. However, evidence in every case is to be sifted through in light of the varied facts and circumstances of each individual case. As observed above, the testimony of the police witnesses in the present case is not worthy of credit. In such a situation, evidence of an independent witness would have rendered the much needed corroborative value, to the otherwise uncompelling case of the prosecution, as discussed above, and hereinafter.
iii). Possibility of misuse of seal of the investigating officer.
17. As per the version of the prosecution witnesses, the recovered case property was duly sealed by IO with the seal of "RK". Nothing has come in the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses qua handing over of seal to any independent public persons by IO after sealing the case property. Thus, it is apparent that the seal was not handed over to any independent witness. There is nothing on record to suggest that IO had made efforts to handover the seal to any independent witness. Further, no handing over memo is on record to show the genuineness of fact of actual handing over of seal by IO to any independent public witnesses. In such a factual backdrop, one irresistible conclusion is drawn that either the seal remained with the IO or other police officials of the same police station and therefore, the possibility of tampering FIR No. 03/2026 P.S. Vikas Puri State Vs. Pradeep & Anr. Page 9 of 13 with the case property cannot be ruled out. Moreover, it is not even the case of the prosecution that the seal was not within the reach of the IO and thus, there was no scope of tampering of case property.
18. In this regard, judgment in case titled as Ramji Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2007 (3) RCR (CRIMINAL) 452, may be adverted to, wherein it was observed in paragraph 7 that:
"....The very purpose of giving seal to an independent person is to avoid tampering of the case property. It is well settled that till the case property is not dispatched to the forensic science laboratory, the seal should not be available to the prosecuting agency and in the absence of such a safeguard the possibility of seal, contraband and the samples being tampered with cannot be ruled out. In the present case, the seal of Investigating Officer-Hoshiar Singh bearing impression HS was available with Maha Singh, a junior police official and that of Deputy Superintendent of Police remained with Deputy Superintendent of Police himself. Therefore, the possibility of tampering with seals as well as seized contraband and samples cannot be ruled out."
19. Similarly, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Safiullah v. State, (1993) 49 DLT 193, had observed:
"9. ... The seal after use were kept by the police officials themselves therefore the possibility of tempering with the contents of the sealed parcel cannot be ruled out. It was very essential for the prosecution to have established from stage to stage the fact that the sample was not tempered with. The prosecution could have proved from the CFSL form itself and from the road certificate as to what articles were taken from the Malkahana. Once a doubt is created in the preservation of the sample the benefit of the same should go to the accused..."....
11. It is nowhere the case of the prosecution that the seal after use was handed over to any of the independent witness. Even the I.O. examined as PW-2 does not utter a word regarding the handing over of the seal after use. Therefore, the conclusion which can be arrived at is that the seal remained with the Investigating Officer or with the other member of the raiding party therefore the possibility of interference or tempering of the seal and the contents of the parcel cannot be ruled out...."
20. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion, the possibility of misuse of seal and tampering of case property cannot be ruled out.
iv). No identification of currency notes.
FIR No. 03/2026 P.S. Vikas Puri State Vs. Pradeep & Anr. Page 10 of 13
21. Furthermore, there is no evidence led by prosecution establishing that the alleged currency note amount Rs.1040/- stated to be recovered from accused persons actually belonged to the said accused person or that they were the proceeds of the alleged amount of bets which were placed through the satta parchi. There is no distinct mark or identification of the aforesaid currency notes nor PW-1 and PW-2 have narrated about the numbers of such notes so as to establish their identity and also the fact that those notes were same which were seized from the accused after his apprehension at the spot. Therefore, in the considered view of this court the benefit of doubt deserves to be given to the accused persons while keeping in view of the above-mentioned infirmitiy in the prosecution case.
v) No DD entry of the Patrolling duty
22. It is also pertinent to mention that prosecution witnesses have failed to prove any documentary evidence or the DD entries to show that they were on patrolling duty. Record shows that PW-1 and PW-2 deposed that they do not know the number of their departure entry and PW-1 and PW-2 deposed that no departure entry was lodged.
Regarding the value of making DD entry it is worth mentioning that as per chapter 22 rule 49 of the Punjab Police Rules it is necessary to record DD Entry of arrival and departure of the police official. Chapter 22 Rule 49 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, is reproduced as under :-
" 22.49 Matters to be entered in Register No. II The following matters shall, amongst others, be entered :-
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 officer 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.
FIR No. 03/2026 P.S. Vikas Puri State Vs. Pradeep & Anr. Page 11 of 13 At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to a case law reported as Rattan Lal V/s State, 19872 (2) Crimes 29 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court "Wherein it has been observed that if the investigating agency deliberately ignores to comply with the provisions of the Act the court will have to approach their action with reservations. The matter has to be viewed with suspicion if the provisions of law are not strictly complied with and the least that can be said is that it is so done with an oblique motive. This failure to bring on record, the DD entries creates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution version and attributes oblique motive on the part of the prosecution."
In the present case, the above said provision appears to have not been complied with by prosecution. These omissions on the part of the prosecution create doubt on the version that the accused was apprehended with the alleged illicit liquor at the spot by the said PWs as the very presence of PWs on the spot is not established.
23. Thus in the light aforesaid discussion, in the considered view of this court the recovery of alleged case property from the possession of accused persons becomes highly doubtful. The prosecution has also failed to establish the essential ingredients for constituting alleged offence. There are material links missing in the prosecution story and the chances of tampering with case property or false implication of accused cannot be ruled out. There is no gainsaying that if two reasonably probable and evenly balanced views of the evidence are possible, one must necessarily concede to the existence of a reasonable doubt. The aforementioned lacunae in the story of the prosecution render the version of the prosecution doubtful, leading to the irresistible conclusion that the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt has not been discharged by the prosecution. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to bring on record any cogent evidence in order to prove the commission of and guilt of the accused persons for offences u/s 12/9/55 Delhi Public Gambling Act beyond reasonable doubt, thus, entitling the accused persons to benefit of doubt and acquittal.
FIR No. 03/2026 P.S. Vikas Puri State Vs. Pradeep & Anr. Page 12 of 13
24. Accordingly, this Court hereby accords the benefit of doubt to the accused persons for the offence u/s 12/9/55 Delhi Public Gambling Act and holds the accused persons not guilty of commission of the said offence. Both the accused persons are thus, acquitted of the offence u/s 12/9/55 of Delhi Public Gambling Act, 1955.
VINOD Digitally signed by
VINOD KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2026.04.24
15:48:24 +0630
Pronounced in the Open Court (Vinod Kumar)
on 24th day of April, 2026 JMFC-05/South West/Dwarka/Delhi
FIR No. 03/2026 P.S. Vikas Puri State Vs. Pradeep & Anr. Page 13 of
13