Delhi District Court
State vs Sh. Baleshwar. on 10 May, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AJAY NAGAR : METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:
BEGGAR'S COURT: KINGSWAY CAMP: CENTRAL DISTRICT : DELHI
Case No. 92/16.
State Vs Sh. Baleshwar.
U/S 5(5)BPB Act, 1959.
a. Sr. No. of the case 92/16.
b. Date of commission of offence 09.05.2016.
c. Name of the complainant Sh. P.K. Shukla.
d. Name of the inmate & his Sh. Baleshwar, S/o Sh. Som Lal Gopi,
parentage & address R/o Village Jakaratat, Post Ratu, Distt.
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
e. The offence complained of
or proved 5(5)BPB Act, 1959.
f. Plea of the accused and his
examination, if any. Plead guilty.
g. The date of hearing of arguments 10.05.2016.
h. The date of such order 10.05.2016.
i. The final order Declared Beggar.
JUDGMENT
Brief statement of reasons for the decision:-
1. In the present case, the prosecution has alleged that on 09.05.2016 at about 10.43 A.M. at Dargah, Wazirabad, Delhi Sh. Baleshwar (hereinafter called as "this person") was found begging from the passersby by raising his hands and he was arrested and was proceeded U/sec. 4(1) of Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959 (hereinafter called as "B.P.B. Act, 1959"). Thereafter, a kalandra was filed before this court and this person was produced U/sec. 4(2) of B.P.B. Act, 1959.
2. After hearing all concerned, this person was admitted to the bail on furnishing Personal Bond in the sum of Rs.500/- and one surety in the like amount.
3. On 10.05.2016, Notice U/sec. 25l CrPC was framed against this person for the offence of begging as defined U/sec.2(1)(i) of B.P.B Act, 1959. He was explained the accusations in vernacular in response to which this person pleaded guilty and did not claim trial. He was apprised of his legal rights and he was also informed all the consequences of pleading guilty. He was also apprised of his right to claim trial but he persisted to plead guilty. This Court ensured that aforesaid plea of the guilt of this person was voluntarily without any coercion, threat, promise or inducement from any quarter.
4. This Court also conducted the summary inquiry in the prescribed manner regarding the allegation of begging. In the due course, Social Investigation Report (S.I.R.) was also filed by the officer concerned.
5. It is expedient to deal with and to discuss the relevant provisions of law and directions made by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on this subject.
Section 2(1) of B.P.B. ACT, 1959 provides:-
(1) "Begging" means -
(a) Soliciting or receiving alms, in a public place whether or not under any pretence such
as singing, dancing, fortune telling, performing or offering any articles for sale;
(b) Entering on any private premises for the purpose of soliciting or receiving alms;
(c) Exposing or exhibiting, with the object of obtaining or extorting alms, any sore, wound injury, deformity of diseases whether of a human being or animal;
(d) Having no visible means of subsistence and wandering, about or, remaining in any public place in such condition or manner as makes it likely that the person doing so exist soliciting or receiving alms;"
Section 5 of B.P.B. ACT, 1959 lays down:-
(1) "Where a person who is brought before the court under the last proceeding section is not proved to have previously been detained in a Certified Institution under the provision of this Act, the Court shall make a summary inquiry, in the prescribed manner, as regards the allegation that he was found begging.
(2) If the inquiry referred to in sub-section (1) cannot be completed forthwith the court may adjourn it from time to time and order the person to be remanded to such place and custody as may be convenient.
(3) If on making the inquiry reference to in sub-section (1), the Court is not satisfied that the person was found begging, it shall order that such person be released forthwith. (4) If on making the inquiry referred to in sub-section (1), the court Is satisfied that such person was found begging, it shall record a finding that the person is a beggar. (5) The court shall order the person found to be a beggar under the Last preceding sub-
section to be detained in a Certified Institution for a period of not less than one year, but not more than three years:
Provided that, if the court is satisfied from the circumstances of the case that the person found to be a beggar as aforesaid is not likely to beg again, it may after due admonition release the beggar on a bond for the beggar's abstaining from begging and being of good behaviour, being executed with or without sureties as the court may require by the beggar or any other person whom the court considers suitable. (6) In passing any order under the provisions of this Act, the Court shall have regard to the following considerations, that is to say:-
(i) The age and character of the beggar,
(ii) The circumstances and conditions in which the beggar was living,
(iii) Reports made by the Probation Officer, and
(iv) Such other matters as may, in the opinion of the court, require to be taken into
consideration in the interest of the beggar",
6. In the case titled as Ram Lakhan Vs State 137(2007) DLT 173, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi made some observations and directives which are inter-alia as following:-
"In the back drop of the foregoing discussion, whenever a person alleged to have been found begging is produced before a court having under the said Act, such Court must proceed in the following manner:-
(1) "First of all, it must satisfy itself that such person was, in fact, found begging. For this purpose, the court must careful, scrutinize the evidence produced before it. It doe s not matter that the inquiry is a summary one. The court must be "satisfied" that the person was found begging. The evidence must be clear and unimpeachable. If there is any doubt or the prosecution requires the court to draw upon many inferences then the court must not record that the person before it was found begging. Consequently, the court, in such a situation cannot also record a finding that the person is a beggar.
(2) Where the court is satisfied that the person before it was found begging and therefore it is comp-
elled to record a finding that he is a beggar, the court "may" (and not "shall") order his detention in a certified institution.
(a) However, where the person has a defence of duress or necessity, The person ought not to be detained. As pointed out, whether the specific defence of duress or necessity is taken by the beggar or not, it is an obligation on the court to satisfy itself that the person did not have such a defence.
(b) And, where it appears to the court that the person was found begging because of his addiction to drinks or drugs, not much purpose would be served by sending him to a certified institution which does not provide for detoxification or de-addiction. The burgeoning problem of drug addiction and alcohol dependence coupled with the problem of begging is a complex one. Here begging is only a symptom of the malady of addiction. Taking action on begging while ignoring the problem of addiction is much same as prescribing a pain killer for the pain and ignoring the treatment of the disease which is the underlying cause for the pain. So, in such cases the court, after due admonition ought to release the beggar on a condition that he shall go in for detoxification or de-addiction at an accredited institution. A bond to this effect may be taken by the court in the manner provided in the proviso to Section 5(5) of the said Act.
(c) In all other cases, after the court records a finding that a person Is a beggar, the court can order detention of such a person in a Certified institution. But, here too, the court must first explore the possibility of applying the principle of admonition as given in the proviso to section 5(5) itself".
7. After hearing all concerned, such as this person/inmate, Welfare Officer and perusal of S.I.R., compliance report and record, this court is satisfied that this person has voluntarily pleaded guilty and he was found begging. As such, in view of plea of guilt, facts and circumstances of the present case, submissions made by all concerned, summary inquiry and directives of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as discussed earlier, this person is declared beggar U/sec. 5(5) of Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959.
8. A copy of this Judgment be provided to this person concerned against acknowledgment.
9. He has been apprised of his right to file appeal against this Judgment.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (AJAY NAGAR)
COURT ON 10.05.2016. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
BEGGAR'S COURT : KINGSWAY CAMP,
CENTRAL DISTRICT : DELHI.
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AJAY NAGAR : METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:
BEGGAR'S COURT: KINGSWAY CAMP: CENTRAL DISTRICT : DELHI Case No. 92/16.
State Vs Sh. Baleshwar.
U/S 5(5) BPB Act, 1959.
Heard on the point of sentence:-
1. Inmate concerned has assured the Court that he will not repeat the same offence in future and will be of good behaviour in future. He also submits that he is leprosy affected and he is willing to be detained in certified institution so that his disease may be cured and he may be rehabilitated. He also submits that he is a very poor person and he is unable to get any livelihood despite his utmost efforts and due to paucity of money, he is unable to get the proper treatment of this disease.
2. Heard the Welfare Officer/Complainant and all concerned. Welfare Officer also submits that this person is very poor and leprosy affected. S.I.R. has also been filed by the official concerned in this regard.
3. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the present case, age and character of the beggar, the circumstances and conditions in which the beggar was living, report made by the Probation Officer and other matters which are required to be taken into consideration in the interest of beggar, this court orders this person to be detained for the period of one year in a certified institution so that his disease may be cured and he may be rehabilitated. Copy of this order also be given to this person free of cost against acknowledgment.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (AJAY NAGAR)
COURT ON 10.05.2016. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
BEGGAR'S COURT : KINGSWAY CAMP,
CENTRAL DISTRICT : DELHI.