Date:
16th June, 2022
Bench:
Nadeem A. Patel
Parties:
Informant – The State (Gaondevi Police Station in SPL. LAC No.08/2022)
Accused – Sumitkumar Basantram Kashyap.
Subject
The accused was facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 122 (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act for sitting in the streets of Mumbai City at 1:30 am in the night wearing a handkerchief around his mouth.
Important Provisions
Section 122 (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act - Being found under suspicious circumstances between sunset and sunrise.
Overview
- The accused was found sitting under suspicious circumstances wearing a handkerchief around his mouth between sunrise and sunset and not giving a proper explanation for doing so.
- The police then took him to the police station and an FIR was lodged.
- Offences punishable under Section 122 (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act was registered vide SPL LAC No.08/2022.
- The investigating officer recorded the statements of the witnesses and submitted the charge sheet against the accused.
Issues raised
- Whether a person found sitting in a street in a city like Mumbai at 1:30 am in the night can be charged under Section 122 (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act?
Judgment Analysis
- The Court observed that to attract an offence punishable under Section 122 (b) of the Maharashtra police Act it is necessary that the prosecution should establish that the accused was hiding his identity to commit a certain offence.
- In the current scenario, it was not stated by the witnesses as to what offence the accused was intending to commit.
- In a city like Mumbai, anyone can stand near the road, thereby it cannot be termed as hiding identity with the intent to commit an offence.
- Wandering on a street where there is no night curfew cannot be termed an offence.
- The accused not providing a satisfactory answer for standing in a street at 1:30 am at the night is a very vague statement.
- If the accused was wearing a handkerchief to cover his mouth it does not mean he is hiding his identity since its covid period and many use handkerchiefs instead of a mask.
- The accused providing his name and details to the police shows that he was not planning on hiding his identity in any way.
Conclusion
The Court concluded by stating that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused was acquitted of the charges framed against him.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
