Kumkum vs State
2010 Latest Caselaw 4103 Del

               *        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                                       Date of Reserve: August, 10, 2010

                                 Date of Order: September 6th 2010

                            + Crl. Revision Petition No.414/2010
%                                                                           06.09.2010
         Kumkum (male Hizara)                                      ...Petitioner

         Versus

         State                                                     ...Respondents

Counsels:

Mr. V.K. Chaudhary for petitioner.
Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for State/respondent.


         JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.       Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.       Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?


                                            JUDGMENT

1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C has been preferred by

the petitioner for setting aside the judgment and order dated 2nd July, 2010 passed by

learned ASJ in Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2010 whereby the appeal of the petitioner

under Section 34 of Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959 (for short, "the Act") was

dismissed.

2. The only argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner is that the learned

Magistrate ordered that the petitioner be detained in a certified institute for a period of

one year. He submitted that the proceedings under the Act were summary trial in nature

and the learned MM had no powers to award sentence of more than three months under

summary trial and sending the petitioner to a certified institute for one year would amount

Crl. Rev. No.414/2010 Kumkum (male Hizara) v State Page 1 Of 2 to sentencing the petitioner for one year. Therefore, the sentence was in excess of the

powers of learned MM.

3. I find no merits in this argument. Under Section 5 of the Act, the trial court is

obliged to send a beggar to a certified institution for a minimum period of one year. The

petitioner in this case had pleaded guilty to the offence of begging and it is not the case

of the petitioner that there were circumstances to show that the petitioner was not likely

to beg again. Rather the case of the petitioner is that the begging was the customary

profession of the petitioner since the petitioner belonged to eunuch community and

therefore petitioner was bound to beg.

4. Keeping in view these submissions, I consider that the trial court rightly passed

sentenced as provided under law. I find no force in this revision petition. The revision

petition is hereby dismissed with no orders to costs.

September 06, 2010                                     SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J
rd




Crl. Rev. No.414/2010   Kumkum (male Hizara) v State                      Page 2 Of 2