Delhi District Court
State vs . Kamal Kumar @ Nitin @ Bagga on 28 April, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVLI TALWAR
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE - 06, CENTRAL DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
D.D. No. 25A dated 16.12.2021
PS - Sadar Bazar
U/s - 53/116 DP Act
State Vs. Kamal Kumar @ Nitin @ Bagga
JUDGMENT
(a) Criminal Case 18/2021
No.
(b) CNR No. DLCT02-027234-2021
(c) Date of 16.12.2021
commission of
offence
(d) Name of the ASI Devender Kumar
complainant
(e) Name of the Kamal Kumar @ Nitin @ Bagga s/o Sh. Kala Ram
accused r/o House No. 2287, Bagichi Ragunath Gali, Sadar
person(s), his Bazar, Delhi.
parentage and
residence
(f) Offence(s) Section 53/116 Delhi Police Act
complained of or
proved
(g) Plea of the Pleaded not guilty
accused
(h) Final Order Convicted
(i) Date of 16.12.2021
institution of case
(j) Date when Not reserved
judgment was
reserved
(k) Date of judgment 28.04.2022 SHIVLI Digitally signed by SHIVLI
TALWAR
TALWAR Date: 2022.04.28 16:39:56
+0530
DD No. 25A PS Sadar Bazar State Vs Kamal Kumar @ Nitin @ Bagga Page No. 1 of 7
Brief reasons for the decision of the case: -
1. The genesis of the prosecution story is that on 16.12.2021 at unknown time, the accused was found present near Bagichi Gali, Basti Julahan, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Sadar Bazar, in contravention of externment order no. 796-820/EXT Cell/North dated 08.09.2021, passed by Ms. Anita Roy, Additional DCP, vide which he was directed to remove himself beyond the limits of NCT of Delhi for a period of 2 years and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 53/116 of Delhi Police Act 1978.
2. On finding a prima facie case to proceed against the accused, cognizance of the offence u/s 53/116 DP Act was taken on 16.12.2021. The provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C were duly complied with. Arguments on the point of notice were heard and a formal notice for commission of offence u/s 53/116 Delhi Police Act was served upon the accused on 21.03.2022 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined two witnesses: PW1 ASI Devender and PW2 Ct. Yogesh.
4. The record transpires that during the course of trial, the accused admitted the proceedings u/s 47 of DP Act dated 08.09.2021.
5. Prior to delving into the merits of the present case, it is relevant to discuss the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
6. PW1 ASI Devender is the complainant. He deposed that on 16.12.2021, he SHIVLI Digitally signed by SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2022.04.28 16:40:05 +0530 DD No. 25A PS Sadar Bazar State Vs Kamal Kumar @ Nitin @ Bagga Page No. 2 of 7 along with Ct. Yogesh were on beat patrolling duty vide DD No. 10A Ex. PW1/1 and were present at Raghunath Gali, Basti Julahan. At about 11:00 AM, a secret informer met him and gave information regarding Kamal @ Nitin who had been externed from Delhi. He informed 4-5 public persons to join the investigation, however, none of them agreed and left the place without disclosing their names and addresses. Thereafter, he along with Ct. Yogesh and secret informer constituted a raiding party and went to the spot as stated by secret informer and secret informer identified Kamal @ Nitin @ Bagga and he was discharged. PW1 with the help of Ct. Yogesh apprehended the accused who upon interrogation, revealed his name as Kamal @ Nitin @ Bagga. PW1 further deposed that he confirmed regarding the externment order from the Reader of the SHO. He also came to know that accused had been externed for a period of two years vide order no. 796-820/EXT Cell/ North dated 08.09.2021, attested copy of which is Ex. PW1/A. Thereafter, accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/B and his personal search was conducted by him vide personal search memo Ex.PW1/C. Accused was medically examined and produced before the Court. Thereafter, proceedings U/s 47 of Delhi Police Act were initiated and Kalandra U/s 53/116 Delhi Police Act was filed. The witness correctly identified the accused during his testimony before the Court.
During his cross-examination by Ld. LAC for accused, the witness admitted that the spot was a crowded place and several persons were coming and going from there at the time of incident. He also admitted that several houses and shops were situated near the spot and that none from the houses and shops were asked to join the investigation and no notice was served on the persons who refused to join the investigation. He deposed that all the SHIVLI Digitally signed by SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2022.04.28 16:40:13 +0530 DD No. 25A PS Sadar Bazar State Vs Kamal Kumar @ Nitin @ Bagga Page No. 3 of 7 documents were prepared at the spot. He further deposed that he along with Ct. Yogesh took the accused for medical examination on his personal motorcycle at about 12:30 PM. He further deposed that no information regarding raid was given to the senior officer. He denied the suggestion that accused was not present at the spot and had been falsely implicated in the present case.
7. PW2 Ct. Yogesh deposed on similar lines as PW1 ASI Devender. The witness correctly identified the accused during his testimony before the Court.
During his cross-examination by Ld. LAC for accused, the witness admitted that the spot was a crowded place and several persons were coming and going from there at the time of incident. He also admitted that several houses and shops were situated near the spot and that none from the houses and shops were asked to join the investigation and no notice was served on the persons who refused to join the investigation. He deposed that all the documents were prepared at the spot. He further deposed that he along with ASI Devender took the accused for medical examination on ERV vehicle at about 12:30 PM and that he did not know the registration no. of that ERV. He further deposed that no information regarding raid was given to the senior officer. He further deposed that it took about 15 minutes for conducting the medical examination of accused, pursuant to which they went to the PS. He denied the suggestion that accused was not present at the spot and had been falsely implicated in the present case.
8. The prosecution evidence was closed on 18.04.2022 and the accused was SHIVLI Digitally signed by SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2022.04.28 16:40:20 +0530 DD No. 25A PS Sadar Bazar State Vs Kamal Kumar @ Nitin @ Bagga Page No. 4 of 7 examined u/s 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C. wherein all incriminating evidence was put to him. The accused pleaded innocence but did not lead any evidence in his defence.
9. I have given a considered thought to the rival submissions made by Ld. APP for the State and Ld. LAC for accused keeping in view the material available on the judicial file.
10. Ld. APP for the State has contended that prosecution has established the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and, therefore, the accused deserves to be convicted for the offence in question.
11. Per contra, Ld. LAC for accused has argued that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has been argued that accused was brought from outside Delhi to the spot and thereafter arrested. Thus, it has been argued that the accused is entitled to acquittal.
12. Before proceeding further on merits of this case, let us first discuss the relevant provision of law for which notice of accusation was served upon the accused.
13. Section 53 of the Delhi Police Act is reproduced below as follows:
"53. Procedure on failure of person to leave the area and his entry therein after removal.- If a person to whom a direction has been issued under section 46, section 47 or section 48 to remove himself from Delhi or any part thereof- Digitally signed by SHIVLI SHIVLI TALWAR
(a) fails to remove himself as directed; or TALWAR Date:
2022.04.28 16:40:28 +0530 DD No. 25A PS Sadar Bazar State Vs Kamal Kumar @ Nitin @ Bagga Page No. 5 of 7
(b) having so removed himself enters Delhi or any part thereof within the period specified in the order, otherwise than with the permission in writing of the Commissioner of Police under section 54, the Commissioner of Police may cause him to be arrested and removed in Police custody to such place outside Delhi or any part thereof as the Commissioner of police may in each case specify."
14. Further, Section 116 of the Delhi Police Act provides the penalty for entering without permission in the area from which a person is directed to remove himself, or overstaying when permitted to return temporarily. It provides that whenever any person, in contravention of a direction issued to him under section 46, section 47 or section 48 enters or returns without permission to Delhi, or any part thereof, from which he was directed to remove himself, he shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine.
15. In the case at hand, the accused was directed by the Additional DCP under section 47 of the DP Act to remove himself beyond the limits of NCT of Delhi for a period of two years starting from 08.09.2021. The apprehension of the accused thereafter on 16.12.2021 i.e., within the period of 2 years from 08.09.2021 proves that the accused has violated the order of externment. The apprehension of the accused in violation of the externment order issued against him by the Additional DCP thus leaves no doubt in the case of the prosecution. The accused has failed to impeach the credibility of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and no explanation could be given by the accused for violation of the externment order and his presence within SHIVLI Digitally signed by SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2022.04.28 16:40:36 +0530 DD No. 25A PS Sadar Bazar State Vs Kamal Kumar @ Nitin @ Bagga Page No. 6 of 7 the limits of NCT of Delhi.
16. In light of the discussion made above, this Court has no hesitation in hereby arriving at the finding that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts and hence, the accused Kamal Kumar @ Nitin @ Bagga stands convicted for the offence u/s 53/116 DP Act.
17. Let the accused be heard on the quantum of sentence.
Digitally signed by SHIVLI TALWAR SHIVLI Date:
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT TALWAR 2022.04.28
16:40:41
on : 28.04.2022 +0530
(SHIVLI TALWAR)
MM-06(C)/THC/Delhi/28.04.2022
DD No. 25A PS Sadar Bazar State Vs Kamal Kumar @ Nitin @ Bagga Page No. 7 of 7