Delhi District Court
State vs Sh. Shiv Kumar. on 19 December, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANATAN PRASAD:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: BEGGAR'S COURT:
DELHI
Case No. 712/14.
U/S 5(5) BPB Act, 1959.
State Vs Sh. Shiv Kumar.
a. Sr. No. of the case 712/14.
b. Date of commission of offence 11.12.2014.
c. Name of the complainant Mr. P.K. Shukla.
d. Name of the inmate & his Sh. Shiv Kumar, S/o Sh. Om Prakash,
parentage & address R/o Footpath, Delhi.
e. The offence complained of
or proved 5(5)BPB Act, 1959.
f. The date of hearing of arguments 19.12.2014
g. The date of such order 19.12.2014
h. Final order Acquitted.
Present:
Ld. APP for the state.
Accused produced from R.C.C.
JUDGMENT.
A brief reason for statement of decision:-
1.By this Judgment I shall decide the present case of the prosecution. The case of the prosecution is this that on 11.12.2014 at about 11.08 A.M at Hanuman Mandir, Yamuna Bazar, Delhi accused was found begging and he was arrested and was proceeded U/S 4(1) of Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959 and a kalandra was filed before the court.
2. Notice U/S 25l CrPC was served upon the accused for offence U/S 2(1) (i) of the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959 and Section 5(5) of the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959.
3. In reply to the notice accused denied that he was found begging. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In support of its case complainant examined two witnesses, namely, CW1 Mr. P.K. Shukla and CW2 Constable Anees Ahmed and C.E is closed. Thereafter statement of accused U/S 313 Cr.P.C was recorded. However, accused preferred not to lead evidence in defence.
5. I have heard the Ld. APP for the state and the accused person and further perused the evidence brought on record. Testimony of CW1 is not cogent, clear and consistent and similar is the case with the statement of CW2, it is in the cross- examination of CW1, as clear admission that he did not see the accused asking for alms from anybody. CW1 has also admitted that there were many persons present on the spot from where the accused was arrested but he did not note down the name and addresses of persons so present, nor he proposed any hostile action against such persons who refused to become public witnesses, though they were duty bound to do so. Even CW2 Constable Anees Ahmed has reiterated that many persons were present on the spot, he has also admitted in his cross-examination that he did not find anything in the hands of the accused while arresting him, though both the CWs have categorically, denied the suggestion that they were deposing falsely, but their testimonies do not inspire confidence, therefore, I do not find the testimonies of both the CWs as reliable and sufficiently qualitative to drive home the guilt of the accused, hence, complainant has failed to prove its case beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt. On the basis of evidence available accused can not be called a beggar as defined U/S 2(1)(i) The Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959 and accordingly accused is acquitted. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (SANATAN PRASAD)
COURT ON 19.12.2014 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
BEGGAR'S COURT :KINGSWAY CAMP
DELHI
Case No.712/2014 State Vs. Sh. Shiv Kumar.
CW 1 Statement of Mr. P.K. Shukla, Welfare Officer, RCC Delhi ON SA On 11.12.2014, I along with Constable Anees Ahmed was on anti begging raid and reached at Hanuman Mandir, Yamuna Bazar, Delhi. The accused was found begging from the passersby by raising his hands in front of them. It was 11.08 A.M. The accused was arrested. Documents were prepared by me. Personal search and arrest memo Ex. CW1/A and Ex.CW1/B. I also prepared kalandra Ex.CW1/C and produced the accused in the court after medical examination.
Xxxxx by inmate.
There were many people present on the spot from where the accused was arrested. No one was willing to become a public witness in the present case. I did not note down names and addresses of the said persons who refused to become public witnesses. I did not find anything in the hands of the accused. I can not tell the name of any person from whom the accused was asking for alms. I did not see the accused asking for alms from anybody. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
RO&AC M.M. Delhi/19.12.2014.
Statement of Mr. P.K. Shukla. W.O., posted at RCC.
I close CE.
RO&AC M.M. Delhi/19.12.2014. Case No.712/2014 State Vs. Sh. Shiv Kumar.
CW 2 Statement of Constable Anees Ahmed, No. 982 DAP, posted at RCC Delhi ON SA On 11.12.2014, I along with Mr. P.K. Shukla was on anti begging raid and reached at Hanuman Mandir, Yamuna Bazar, Delhi. The accused was found begging from the passersby by raising his hands in front of them. It was 11.08 A.M. The accused was arrested. Documents were prepared by Welfare Officer. Personal search and arrest memo Ex.CW1/A and Ex.CW1/B. Accused was produced in the court after medical examination. Xxxxx by Inmate.
No one was willing to become a public witness in the present case. I did not note down names and addresses of the said persons who refused to become public witnesses. I can not tell the name of any person from whom the accused was asking for alms. There were many people present on the spot from where the accused was arrested. I did not find anything in the hands of the accused. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
RO&AC M.M. Delhi/19.12.2014.
Case No. 712/14 State Vs Shri Shiv Kumar.
Statement of Sh. Shiv Kumar, S/o Sh. Om Prakash, U/S 313 CrPC Without oath Q. It is in evidence against you that on 11.12.2014 at about 11.08 AM at Hanuman Mandir, Yamuna Bazar, Delhi you accused were apprehended by a raiding party headed by CW1 Mr. P.K. Shukla, as found begging from the passersby, by raising your hands. What have you to say?
Ans. I was arrested falsely in the present case. I was not begging. Q. It is in evidence against you that on the said day, time and place you accused was found begging from the passersby by raising his hands in front of them. What have you to say?
Ans. I was not begging.
Q. It is in evidence against you that search of accused were taken upon which personal search memo Ex.CW1/A was prepared. What have you to say? Ans. It is correct that P/S was conducted. Rs.87/- was found in my personal search. Q. It is in evidence against you that you accused were arrested and arrest memo Ex.CW1/B was prepared. What have you to say?
Ans. It is correct.
Q. It is in evidence against you that kalandra Ex. CW1/C was sent to the court for trial. What have you to say?
Ans. I am innocent and I have been falsely implicated in this case. Q. Why the CWs have deposed against you?
Ans. They have deposed falsely against me.
Q. Do you want to say anything else?
Ans. I am innocent.
Q. Do you want to lead DE?
Ans. No Q. Do you want to rebut SIR?
Ans. No. RO&AC MM Delhi/19.12.2014.