Chhoti vs State
2012 Latest Caselaw 3623 Del

    *        THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                              Date of Decision: 30 .05.2012

+       CRL.REV.P. 226/2012
        SANTRA                   ..... Petitioner
                          Through:          Mohd. Hadis Ansari, Advocate.
                   versus
        STATE               ..... Respondent
                          Through:          Mr.Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel
                                            with Ms.Fizani Husain,APP.

+       CRL.REV.P. 227/2012
        RAMETI                   ..... Petitioner
                          Through:           Mohd. Hadis Ansari, Advocate.
                   versus
        STATE                ..... Respondent
                          Through:           Mr.Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel
                                             with Ms.Fizani Husain,APP.
+       CRL.REV.P. 228/2012
        KALI               ..... Petitioner
                          Through:           Mohd. Hadis Ansari, Advocate.
                   versus
        STATE                ..... Respondent
                          Through:           Mr.Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel
                                             with Ms.Fizani Husain,APP.

+       CRL.REV.P. 229/2012
        RISALI              ..... Petitioner
                         Through:        Mohd. Hadis Ansari, Advocate.

                            versus
        STATE             ..... Respondent
                        Through:          Mr.Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel
                                          with Ms.Fizani Husain,APP.
+     CRL.REV.P. 230/2012
      CHHOTI                  ..... Petitioner
                        Through:          Mohd. Hadis Ansari, Advocate.
                 versus
      STATE               ..... Respondent
Through:   Mr.Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel with Ms.Fizani Husain,APP.
Crl. Rev. P. No. 226/2012                                           Page 1 of 5
 CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

M.L. MEHTA, J.

This is a criminal revision petition U/s 401 Cr.P.C. against the

judgment and final order dated 23.03.2012 passed by learned ASJ

whereby he dismissed the appeal and upheld the order dated 03.03.2012

passed by the Special Metropolitan Magistrate Mobile Court-II, Lajpat

Nagar, New Delhi in which the petitioners were ordered to be kept in

Certified Institution for a period of one year in view of Section 5 (5) of

the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act (hereinafter referred to as Act).

Vide the order dated 3rd March, 2012 the Learned M.M. convicted

the petitioners and ordered them to be kept in Certified Institution for a

period of one year, in view of Section 5 ( 5) of the Act. The petitioners

carried the matter in appeal which came to be dismissed by the Learned

ASJ vide impugned order dated 23.03.2012.

The present petition has been filed assailing the said impugned

order of the Learned ASJ and Special M.M.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and

Ld. Addl. P.P. for state and parties and their relations in person.

There is no dispute that the petitioners who are the illiterate ladies

having come from Bhilwara, Rajasthan along with their spouses and

children pleaded guilty to the notices U/s 251 Cr.P.C. served upon them

by the Special M.M. From the order of the Learned Special M.M. it is

seen that he had followed the required procedure. It has been recorded by

him that the petitioners had stated that they had come to Delhi and they

had no jobs and money to buy food for their children and that they were

receiving alms for their food and daily necessities and were living on

footpath at Kotla Market, New Delhi. Placing reliance on these

statements of the petitioners, the Learned Special M.M. arrived at the

conclusion that the petitioners were the professional beggars and not

having any defence. When learned Magistrate had noted that they came

to Delhi for begging and had no job or money and were living on footpath

and receiving alms for food and daily necessities, it cannot be said that

the petitioners are professional beggars but they were begging for

necessities. It is really unfortunate that the petitioners had to come to

Delhi all the way from Rajasthan for the purposes of arranging food for

self and their family members particularly children. The petitioners are in

Certified Institution since 3.3.2012 and on the last date of hearing they

were summoned by way of production warrants for assessing their

backgrounds and intentions. They all were having small children in their

laps and expressed their sincere desire to go back to their native villages

immediately. They also maintained that they were begging due to the

necessity of food for their children. In all these circumstances and

keeping in view the fact that they are in Certified Institution for about

three months now, I deem it a fit case to invoke the applicability of

proviso to Section 5 (5) of the Act. Today their male family members are

also present and they have also undertaken to leave the City for their

native villages immediately on the release of the petitioners. Like the

petitioners they have also ensured not to let them indulge in begging. In

such circumstances, I feel that instead of making their children further

suffer they can be released on their executing bonds of good behaviour

without sureties on their undertaking not to involve in begging or to be

seen begging in Delhi. The bonds will be executed before the Special

M.M. and for which the petitioners will be produced before him

tomorrow i.e. 31.05.2012. It is further directed that Special Magistrate

shall ensure by issuing appropriate directions to the authorities of Nirmal

Chaya Parisar (complex), Jail Road, Hari Nagar, New Delhi to ensure the

deportation of the petitioners to their villages immediately.

All the petitions are disposed of accordingly.

Order Dasti.

M.L. MEHTA, J.

MAY        30, 2012
pkv