Delhi District Court
State vs Mehant Kumar on 28 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS VASUNDHARA AZAD, CJM, WEST,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLWT02-000106-2022
State Vs. Mehant Kumar and Anr
FIR No. : 479/2021
Police Station : Kirti Nagar
Under Section : 12/9/55 Gambling Act
Date of institution : 05.01.2022
Date of pronouncement : 28.06.2025
JUDGEMENT
a) Cr. Cases number of the case 220/2022 b) Date of commission of offence 08.06.2025 c) Name of the complainant HC Praveen Kumar
d) Name, parentage and address of the 1. Mehant Kumar
S/o Sh. Suresh
accused
2. Prithivi Raj
S/o Bhagoti Prasad
Both resident of Plot No. 20, Back
side of Reliance Furniture, Kirti
Nagar, Delhi
e) Offence complained of Section 12 of Delhi Public
Gambling Act, 1955
f) Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
g) Final order Acquitted
Digitally signed by
State Vs. Mehant Kumar and Anr
VASUNDHARA
VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD Date: 2025.06.28
FIR No. 479/2021 P.S Kirti Nagar Page no.1/14
16:16:02 +0530
h) Date of final order 28.06.2025
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS AND REASONS FOR THE
DECISION
1. Briefly stated, it is the case of prosecution that on 27.10.2021 at
about 10.00 pm at back side of Reliance Furniture, Kirti Nagar, New
Delhi, accused persons Mehant Kumar and Prithvi Raj were found
playing gambling and thus accused Mehant Kumar and Prithvi Raj
are guilty of having committed offence U/s 3 Delhi Prevention of
Defacement of Property Act.
ACCUSATION AGAINST THE ACCUSED
2. Vide order dated 08.06.2022 passed by this court, charge for offence
under Section 12 of Delhi Public Gambling Act, 1955 was framed
against the accused persons Mehant Kumar and Prithvi Raj, to which
they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION
3. In order to prove its case against the accused persons, the
prosecution in all examined 03 witnesses, viz.
(a) PW-1 ASI Praveen Kumar who has deposed that on 27.10.2021, he
and Ct. Jangjeet who were on patrolling duty and at about 10 pm
when they reached Reliance Furniture, Kirti Nagar, Delhi, accused
Digitally signed
by
VASUNDHARA
State Vs. Mehant Kumar and Anr
VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD
Date:
FIR No. 479/2021 P.S Kirti Nagar Page no.2/14
2025.06.28
16:17:26 +0530
persons Mehant Kumar and Prithvi Raj were found gambling behind
Reliance Furniture, thereafter which, they apprehended the accused
persons and recovered 52 playing cards and Rs. 720/ from them
which were seized vide seizure memo (Ex. PW-1/A) an drukka (Ex.
PW1/B) was prepared and the present FIR was registered through Ct.
Jangjeet. After registation of FIR, further investigation was marked
to ASI Narender, to whom case property, relevant documents and
custody of accused persons were handed over by PW-1, thereafter
which, site plan (Ex. PW-1/C) was prepared. PW-1 correctly
identified accused persons Mehant Kumar and Prithvi Raj and the
case property (Ex. P-1) in court. PW-1 was cross-examined by Ld.
Counsel for accused persons and thereafter discharged.
(b) PW-2 ASI Narender Kumar has deposed that on 27.10.2021, after
registration of FIR, the present matter was marked to him for further
investigation, pursuant to which he filed chargesheet in the present
matter. PW2 being the second IO in the present case has deposed
with respect to investigation conducted by him. PW2 was cross-
examined by counsel for accused persons and thereafter discharged.
(c) PW-3 HC Jangjeet has deposed that on 27.10.2021, he was on
patrolling duty with HC Praveen and at about 10.00 pm, when they
reached back side of Reliance Furniture, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi,
they saw accused persons were playing cards using money. PW3
further deposed that the said information was forwarded to Senior
Officers and thereafter accused persons were apprehended. PW3
Digitally
signed by
VASUNDHARA
State Vs. Mehant Kumar and Anr
VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD Date:
2025.06.28
FIR No. 479/2021 P.S Kirti Nagar Page no.3/1416:20:18
+0530
deposed on the same lines as that of PW-1 ASI Praveen Kumar,
thereafter which he was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused
and thereafter discharged.
3. It is noted that as per statement of accused recorded under Sec. 294
Cr.PC (Sec. 230 BNSS) on 03.01.2023, the following documents
were admitted by the accused:-
Sr. Documents Exhibits
No.
1. Copy of FIR Ex. A-1.
2. Endorsement on rukka Ex. A-2
3. Certificate under Sec. 65 of IEA Ex. A-3
4. Since all the prosecution witnesses were examined, upon statement
of Ld. APP for the State prosecution evidence was closed and matter
was fixed for recording statement of accused U/s.313 Cr.P.C.
STATEMENT / DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED
5. In his examination under Section 313 CrPC., accused denied the
entire evidence put to him and opted not to lead DE. Thereafter, DE
was closed.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
6. Final arguments advanced by Ld. APP for State and ld. counsel for
accused heard. Case file perused carefully.
7. Ld. APP for the State argued that on the basis of the entire evidence
brought on record, the guilt of the accused persons has been
Digitally signed
by
VASUNDHARA
State Vs. Mehant Kumar and Anr VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD Date:
FIR No. 479/2021 P.S Kirti Nagar Page no.4/14 2025.06.28
16:18:10
+0530
established beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, the accused
persons be convicted.
8. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has argued
that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused
persons beyond reasonable doubt and hence, they be acquitted.
9. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions
made by both the parties. Accused persons Mehant Kumar and
Prithvi Raj have been indicted for the offence U/S 12 of Delhi Public
Gambling Act, the contents of which are reproduced as follows:
“12.Gaming and setting birds and animals to fight in public streets.
A police officer may apprehend without warrant any person found gaming
in any publics street, place or thoroughfare situated within the Union
Territory of Delhi, or any person setting any birds or animals to fight in
any public street, place or thoroughfare situated within the said Union
Territory, or any person there present aiding and abetting such public
fighting of birds and animals, such person when apprehended shall be
brought without delay before a Magistrate and shall be liable to
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months and shall also
be liable to a fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, and such
police officer may seize all instruments of gaming found in such public
street, place or thoroughfare on the person of those whom he shalls so
arrest, and the Magistrate may on conviction of the offender order such
instruments to be forthwith destroyed.”
10. It is trite law that the burden always lies upon the prosecution to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable
evidence and that the law does not permit the court to punish the
accused on the basis of moral conviction or on account of suspicion
alone. Also, it is well settled that accused is entitled to the benefit of
every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such doubt
Digitally
signed by
VASUNDHARA
State Vs. Mehant Kumar and Anr VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD Date:
FIR No. 479/2021 P.S Kirti Nagar Page no.5/14
2025.06.28
16:18:18
+0530
entitles him to acquittal. However, as discussed hereinafter, careful
scrutiny of the evidence placed on record brings to light the fact that
the case of the prosecution is fraught with multiple inconsistencies,
rendering the prosecution version incredible. Some of the
inconsistencies are elaborated as follows:
(a) Doubtful Seizure Memo:
• A careful reading of the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 reflects that
PW1 ASI Praveen Kumar Singh had seized the case property vide
seizure memo Ex. PW1/A at the spot and had thereafter prepared the
tehrir and handed over the same to Ct. Jangjeet for registration of
FIR. The narration of such a chronology of events leads to the
irresistible conclusion that the seizure memo of property was
prepared at the spot, prior to the tehrir being sent to the police station
for registration of the FIR and that the FIR was, therefore, admittedly
registered after the preparation of the said document. Accordingly, it
follows that the number of the FIR would have come to the
knowledge of the investigating officer only after a copy of the FIR
was brought to the spot by Ct. Jangjeet. Thus, ordinarily, the FIR
number should not find mention in the seizure memo, which
document came into existence before registration of the FIR.
However, quite surprisingly, perusal of seizure memo reflects the
mentioning of the full particulars of the FIR thereupon, which fact
has remained unexplained on behalf of the prosecution. It is not even
the case that the same, on the face of it, appears to have been written
in separate ink or at some left over space. Rather, it appears to have
been recorded in same continuity, handwriting and ink as rest of the
Digitally signed
by
VASUNDHARA
State Vs. Mehant Kumar and Anr VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD
Date:
FIR No. 479/2021 P.S Kirti Nagar Page no.6/14
2025.06.28
16:18:38 +0530
contents of these documents. No explanation from the prosecution is
forthcoming as to how the FIR number surfaced on a document
which was prepared prior to the registration of the FIR. This fact
casts a fatal doubt upon the case of prosecution.
• At this stage, reference may be made to the decision of the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi in ‘Pawan Kumar v. The Delhi Administration’
[1989 Cri. L.J. 127], wherein it was observed in paragraph 5 as follows:
“….Learned counsel for the state concedes that immediately after the arrest of
the accused, his personal search was effected and the memo Ex.PW11/D was
prepared. Thereafter, the sketch plan of the knife was prepared in the presence
of the witnesses. After that, the ruqa Ex.PW11/F was sent to the Police Station
for the registration of the case on the basis of which the FIR, PW 11/G was
recorded. The F.I.R. is numbered as 36, a copy of which was sent to the I.O.
after its registration. It comes to that the number of F.I.R. 36 came to the
knowledge of the I.O. after a copy of it was delivered to him at the spot by a Ct.
. In the normal circumstances, the F.I.R. No. should not find mention in the
recovery memo or the sketch plan which had come into existence before the
registration of the case. However, from the perusal of the recovery memo, I find
that the FIR is mentioned whereas the sketch plan does not show the number of
the FIR. It is not explained as to how and under what circumstances the
recovery memo came to bear the F.I.R. No. which had already come into
existence before the registration of the case. These are few of the circumstances
which create a doubt, in my mind, about the genuineness of the weapon of
offence alleged to have been recovered from the accused.”
• Similarly, in paragraph 4 of ‘Mohd. Hashim vs State‘ [82 (1999) DLT
375], the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi observed:
“…Surprisingly, the secret information (Ex. P.W. 7/A) received by the Sub-
Inspector Narender Kumar Tyagi (P.W. 7), the notice under S. 50 of the
Act (Ex. P.W. 5/A) alleged to have been served on the appellant, the
seizure memo (Ex. P.W. 1/A) and the report submitted under S. 57 of the
Act (Ex. P.W. 7/D) bear the number of the FIR (Ex. P.W. 4/B). The
number of the FIR (Ex. P.W. 4/B) given on the top of the aforesaid
documents is in the same ink and in the same handwriting, which clearly
indicates that these documents were prepared at the same time. The
prosecution has not offered any explanation as to under what
circumstances number of the FIR (Ex. P.W. 4/B) had appeared on the top
of the aforesaid documents, which were allegedly prepared on the spot.
This gives rise to two inferences that either the FIR (Ex. P.W. 4/B) was
recorded prior to the alleged recovery of the contraband or number of the
said FIR was inserted in these documents after its registration. In both the
situations, it seriously reflects upon the veracity of the prosecution version
Digitally
signed by
VASUNDHARAState Vs. Mehant Kumar and Anr VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD Date:
2025.06.28
FIR No. 479/2021 P.S Kirti Nagar Page no.7/14 16:18:26
+0530
and creates a good deal of doubt about recovery of the contraband in the
manner alleged by the prosecution.”
• The aforesaid rulings of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi squarely apply
to the facts in the present case as well, which leads to only one of the
either inference, that is, either the FIR was registered prior to the
alleged recovery of the case property, or that said document was
prepared later in point of time. In either of the scenarios, a dent is
created in the version of the prosecution, the benefit of which must
accrue to the accused.
(b) The non-joining of any independent / public witness.
• It is evident from the record that no public person witness to the
recovery of case property has been either cited in the list of prosecution
witnesses or has been examined by the prosecution. Apparently, IO had
even asked a few public persons to join the investigation, however, all
of them refused to join the investigation and left the spot. No notice was
also admittedly served to these public witnesses upon their refusal to
join investigation in the case. Thus, it is not the case of prosecution that
public witnesses were not available at the spot. However, from a perusal
of the record, no serious effort for joining public witnesses appears to
have been made by the investigating officer. These facts are squarely
covered by the ruling of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case
titled as, ‘Anoop Joshi Vs. State‘ [1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC)],
wherein it was observed as under:
“………18. It is repeatedly laid down by this Court in such cases it should
be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join
independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evidence that no such
sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops
were open and one or two shop-keepers could have been persuaded to
Digitally
signed by
VASUNDHARA
VASUNDHARA AZAD
State Vs. Mehant Kumar and Anr AZAD Date:
2025.06.28
FIR No. 479/2021 P.S Kirti Nagar Page no.8/14
16:19:00
+0530
join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the
appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding
party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such
shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigours of law
while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in
investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC.”
• Further, in a case law reported as ‘Roop Chand v. The State of Haryana’
[1999 (1) C.L.R. 69, Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court] held as
under:
“……..The recovery of illicit liquor was effected from the possession of the
petitioner during noon time and it is in the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses that some witnesses from the public were available and they were
asked to join the investigation. The explanation furnished by the prosecution is
that the independent witnesses were asked to join the investigation but they
refused to do so on the ground that their joining will result into enmity between
them and the petitioner.
4. It is well settled principle of the law that the Investigating agency should join
independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband articles, if they are
available and their failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt
on the prosecution case. In the present case also admittedly the independent
witnesses were available at the time of recovery but they refused to associate
themselves in the investigation. This explanation does not inspire confidence
because the police officials who are the only witnesses examined in the case
have not given the names and addresses of the persons contacted to join it is a
very common excuse that the witnesses from the public refused to join the
investigation. A police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to
ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the
public the Investigating Officer can take action against such a person under the
law. Had it been a fact that the witnesses from the public had refused to join the
investigation, the IO must have proceeded against them under the relevant
provision of law. The failure to do so by the police officer is suggestive of the
fact that the explanation for non- joining the witnesses from the public is an
after thought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together make
the prosecution case highly doubtful.”
• This Court is conscious of the legal position that non-joining of
independent witnesses cannot be the sole ground to discard or doubt the
prosecution case, as has been held in ‘Appabhai and another v. State of
Gujarat‘ [AIR 1988 SC 696]. However, evidence in every case is to be
sifted through in light of the varied facts and circumstances of each
individual case. As observed above, the testimony of the police
Digitally
State Vs. Mehant Kumar and Anr signed by
VASUNDHARA
FIR No. 479/2021 P.S Kirti Nagar Page no.9/14
VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD Date:
2025.06.28
16:19:14
+0530
witnesses in the present case is not worthy of credit. In such a situation,
evidenceof an independent witness would have rendered the much
needed corroborative value, to the otherwise uncompelling case of the
prosecution, as discussed above, and hereinafter.
(c) Possibility of misuse of seal of the investigating officer.
• As per the version of the prosecution witnesses, after sealing the case
property with the seal of “PK”, the seal was handed over to Ct. Jangjeet.
However, Ct. Jangjeet was a recovery witness in the present case. Thus,
the seal was not handed over to any independent witness. There is
nothing on record to suggest that IO had made efforts to handover the
seal to any independent witness. More importantly, it is imperative to
note that no handing over memo of seal was also prepared by the IO in
this regard. In addition to this, there is no taking over memo on record
to show as to when the seal was taken back from Ct. Jangjeet or if it
remained with him forever. In such a factual backdrop, since the seal
was given to Ct. JAngjeet, the seal remained with the police officials of
the same police station and therefore, the possibility of tampering with
the case property cannot be ruled out. Moreover, it is not even the case
of the prosecution that the seal was not within the reach of the IO and
thus, there was no scope of tampering of case property.
• In this regard, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in ‘Safiullah v. State’
[(1993) 49 DLT 193] had observed:
“9. … The seal after use were kept by the police officials themselves therefore
the possibility of tempering with the contents of the sealed parcel cannot be
ruled out. It was very essential for the prosecution to have established from
stage to stage the fact that the sample was not tempered with. The prosecution
could have proved from the CFSL form itself and from the road certificate as
to what articles were taken from the Malkahana. Once a doubt is created in
Digitally signed
by
VASUNDHARA
State Vs. Mehant Kumar and Anr VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD
Date:
FIR No. 479/2021 P.S Kirti Nagar Page no.10/14
2025.06.28
16:16:51 +0530
the preservation of the sample the benefit of the same should go to the
accused…”….
• It is nowhere the case of the prosecution that the seal after use was
handed over to the independent witness. Even the I.O./P.W.2 does not
utter a word regarding the handing over of the seal after use. Therefore,
the conclusion which can be arrived at is that the seal remained with the
Investigating Officer or with the other member of the raiding party
therefore the possibility of interference or tempering of the seal and the
contents of the parcel cannot be ruled out. Thus, in light of the aforesaid
discussion, the possibility of misuse of seal and tampering of case
property cannot be ruled out.
(d) Other infirmities in the prosecution case.
• Furthermore, apparently, after the accused persons were apprehended in
the present matter by ASI Praveen and Ct. Jangjeet and case property
was recovered from them, no information was relayed in this regard by
ASI Praveen to any higher police official or at the police station. It was
only after the registration of FIR that the investigation in the present
case was subsequently marked to ASI Narender Kumar. Such non-
disclosure of information by the complainant police official raises
doubts as regards the genuineness of the actual commission of the
offence by the accused persons, as alleged and their subsequent
apprehension in the circumstances as delineated.
• Furthermore, though DD entry as regards the departure of ASI Praveen
Kumar and Ct. Jangjeet for patrolling duty has been placed on record,
however, no DD entry with respect to their arrival at the PS after
conclusion of investigation in the case, has been placed on record.
Digitally
signed by
State Vs. Mehant Kumar and Anr VASUNDHARA
VASUNDHARA AZAD
FIR No. 479/2021 P.S Kirti Nagar Page no.11/14
AZAD Date:
2025.06.28
16:19:21
+0530
Moreover, even the DD entry as regards the departure of ASI Narender
Kumar from PS to the spot after subsequent investigation in the case
was marked to him, has not been placed on record. No explanation in
this regard is also forthcoming on behalf of the said police officials. At
this juncture, it would be apposite to reproduce chapter 22 Rule 49 of of
Punjab Police Rules, 1934, which is as follows:
“22.49 Matters to be entered in Register No.II- The following matters shall, amongst others,
be entered:
(c) The hour of arrival and departure on duty at or from a police station of all enrolled police
officers of whatever rank, whether posted at the police station or elsewhere, with a statement
of the nature of their duty. This entry shall be made immediately on arrival or prior to the
departure of the officer concerned and shall be attested by the latter personality by signature or
seal.
(ci) Note: The term police station will include all places such as Police Lines & Police Posts
where Register No. II is maintained.”
• The aforesaid lapse of not making required DD entries at the PS, on part
of the said police officials renders the factum of their departure to the
spot and arrival to PS questionable and suspicious and thereby,
blemishes the sanctity of their version in this regard. Such material
discrepancies raise doubt regarding the proceedings having been
conducted at the spot and also give rise to the suspicion that the same
were done in a mechanical manner in the PS itself and that the accused
persons may have been falsely implicated in the present case.
CONCLUSION
11. There is no gainsaying that if two reasonably probable and evenly
balanced views of the evidence are possible, one must necessarily
concede to the existence of a reasonable doubt. The aforementioned
lacunae in the story of the prosecution render the version of the
Digitally
signed by
VASUNDHARA
VASUNDHARA AZAD
State Vs. Mehant Kumar and Anr
AZAD Date:
2025.06.28
16:19:38
FIR No. 479/2021 P.S Kirti Nagar Page no.12/14
+0530
prosecution doubtful, leading to the irresistible conclusion that the
burden of proving the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable
doubt has not been discharged by the prosecution.
12. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed
to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent
and convincing evidence. The burden of proof of the version of the
prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the
prosecution. Also, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that the
accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt in the
prosecution story and such reasonable doubt entitles the accused to
acquittal.
13. In the present case, in view of the above stated discussions, it can be
held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt and has failed to bring on record any cogent
evidence in order to prove the commission of and guilt of the
accused persons for offence under section 12 of Delhi Public
Gambling beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the evidence coming on
record entitles the accused persons to acquittal in the present case.
Accordingly, this Court hereby accords the benefit of doubt to the
accused persons for the offence under section 12 of Delhi Public
Gambling Act and holds the accused persons not guilty of
commission of the said offence. Accused persons Mehant Kumar and
Prithvi Raj are thus, acquitted of the offence under section 12 of
Delhi Public Gambling Act.
Copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the accused persons.
Digitally
signed by
VASUNDHARA
State Vs. Mehant Kumar and Anr VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD Date:
2025.06.28
FIR No. 479/2021 P.S Kirti Nagar Page no.13/14
16:19:47
+0530
Let digitally signed copy of this judgment be uploaded on the district
court website.
Announced in open Court on 28.06.2025. Digitally signed
by
VASUNDHARA
VASUNDHARA AZAD
AZAD
Date:
2025.06.28
16:16:37 +0530(VASUNDHARA AZAD)
CJM/West/THC/28.06.2025State Vs. Mehant Kumar and Anr
FIR No. 479/2021 P.S Kirti Nagar Page no.14/14