Delhi District Court
Sh. Chandan vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 1 April, 2010
IN THE COURT OF MS. MADHU JAIN,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03,NORTH, DELHI.
Crl. Appeal. No. 12/2010
C.C. No.: 111/09
U/s: 2 (1) (i)/5 (5) of B.P.B. Act 1959.
P.S.: Chandni Chowk
Court concerned/successor court
Sh. T.S. Mutti, Special MM,
Mobile Court, New Delhi
In the matter of :-
Sh. Chandan
S/o Mahadev
R/o BBC Market, Tikri Boarder
Delhi
.....Appellant
Vs.
The State (NCT of Delhi)
......Respondent
ORDER
1. This is an order on appeal against the impugned judgment and order on sentence dt. 21.11.2009 of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted U/s 5(5) of the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act 1959 (In Short B.P.B. Act) and was ordered to be detained in certified institution for a period of one year.
2. In brief the case of the prosecution is that on 21.11.2009 at about 10.30 a.m., the appellant was found begging from the passersby at Fountain, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. After filing of the complaint Crl. Appeal. No. 12/2010 1/3 notice U/s 251 Cr.P.C. was served upon him for the offence U/s 2 (1) (i) and 5 (5) of BPB Act, 1959 to which he voluntarily pleaded guilty and was sentenced accordingly by the trial court.
3. After filing of the appeal, Trial Court Record was summoned and notice was also given to the state.
4. I have heard Ld. counsel for the appellant and Ld. APP for the state and have carefully perused the file.
5. Ld. counsel for the appellant argued that she is not challenging the impugned judgment on merits as the appellant had pleaded guilty to the alleged offence but prayed that appellant be released on probation as the sentence awarded to him is harsh one.
6. Ld. Defence counsel for appellant requests for lenient view as it is the first offence of appellant. The appellant is aged 26 years. He does not do any work and sleeps at night at Old Delhi Railway Station and sometimes eat at Gurudwara. He is a permanent resident of Delhi. He has aged parents in his family to whom he visits only once a week.His mother is working in a factory and father is running a Pan shop. Counsel for appellant submits that if kept in certified institution, there are every chances that the appellant will indulge in begging again but if released on probation, there are every chances that the appellant shall not indulge in begging if he will remain in contact with his family. Crl. Appeal. No. 12/2010 2/3 The appellant has already spent more than four months in the certified institution and his financial condition is very weak. She prays that the benefit of probation be given to him.
7. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and that it is the first offence of appellant, he is released on probation for a period of one year on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 3,000/- and one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial court. During this period he shall abstain from begging and keep good behaviour.
8. In view of the above discussion, the judgment dated 21.11.2009 of the trial court convicting the petitioner U/s 5(5) of the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act 1959 is upheld and the order on sentence of the trial court is modified as discussed above. In case the appellant fails to furnish the bond before the trial court, then the sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial court would remain in force. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed off. An attested copy of this order be sent to the trial court. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
9. Copy of order be given dasti.
(MADHU JAIN) Additional Sessions Judge-3 (North) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Announced in the open court today i.e. on 1.4. 2010 Crl. Appeal. No. 12/2010 3/3 Crl. Appeal. No. 12/2010 4/3 Crl. Appeal. No. 12/2010 5/3