RAM LAKHAN Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 13.10.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby the petitioner's appeal against the judgment dated 25.08.2005 and order on "sentence" dated 29.08.2005 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was rejected. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate found the petitioner to be a "beggar" and ordered his detention in a Certified Institution for a period of one year under Section 5 (5) of the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959 [As extended to the Union Territory of Delhi] (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). The finding that the petitioner was a beggar was upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. However, the duration of the detention was reduced to 6 months by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

(2.) Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the point that the petitioner has been found "guilty" only on the basis of the testimony of two police officers and no independent witness whatsoever was examined. The allegations against the petitioner as per the prosecution case were that on 29.07.2005 at about 12.05 p.m. at the Railway Crossing at Rampura, Delhi, the petitioner was found begging from the passers-by by a raiding patty headed by PW-1 (Ramesh Kumar). The prosecution examined two witnesses, PW-1 (Ramesh Kumar) and PW-2 (ASI Rozy Khanna) who was also a member of the raiding party. It was stated by them that they were on an anti-begging raid and when they reached the said Railway Crossing, the petitioner was found begging from members of the public. A sum of Rs.47/- was also recovered on the basis of a personal search conducted on the petitioner.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at 12.05 p.m. at the said crossing, there were a number of other people who were not members of the raiding party, but none of them were produced as witnesses. The courts below examined this contention of the petitioner and came to the conclusion that the mere fact that the public witnesses have not been examined would not throw out the prosecution case if the testimonies of the police officers were unshakable. In the present case, the courts below have found the testimonies of the police officers to be trustworthy. In this background, the question which arises for consideration is whether the courts below were right in law to have recorded the finding that the petitioner was a "beggar" and in ordering his detention in a Certified Institution.