Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

State vs . Alam @ Tiger Etc. on 17 August, 2012

                                                     State vs.  Alam @ Tiger etc. 


          IN THE COURT OF SH ANUJ AGARWAL: MM­01(SE) /
                          SAKET COURT: DELHI 

State vs.    Alam @ Tiger etc.
FIR NO.     :  390/09
U/S         :  379/411/468/34 IPC
PS          : Badarpur
 
                                JUDGMENT

a)  Sl. No. of the case              :  19/4

b)    Date of institution of the case :  27.01.11

c)    Date of commission of offence :  In the intervening night of 05­06.12.09

d)  Name of the complainant          :  Sh. Mithlesh Kumar

e) Name & address of the 1. Alam @ Tiger S/o Rajjak accused persons R/o Village - Narbari, PS Tapple, Distt. Aligar, U.P.

2. Sabu S/o Ayyub R/o Village - Narbari, PS Tapple, Distt. Aligar, U.P.

f) Offence charged with : 379/411/468/34 IPC

g) Plea of the accused persons : Pleaded not guilty. 

h)    Arguments heard on              : 17.08.12

i)    Final order                     : Acquitted 

j)    Date of Judgment                : 17.08.12




FIR No.  390/09  PS Badarpur                                          1  of  3
                                                                    State vs.  Alam @ Tiger etc.

BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:

1. Accused persons Alam @ Tiger and Sabu have been sent to face trial with the allegations that in the intervening night of 05­06.12.09 in front of H.No. 592­D, Gali No. 38D, Molarband Extn.

within the jurisdiction of PS Badarpur, both accused in furtherance of their common intention committed theft of motorcycle bearing no. DL­3SAV­7897 from the possession of complainant Mithlesh Kumar and thereby alleged to have committed offence U/sec. 379/34 IPC. The accused persons were charged in alternate for possessing the said motorcycle with a forged number plate of UP­81V­4234 knowingly or having reasons to believe that it to be a stolen motorcycle and thereby alleged to have committed the offence U/sec. 411/468/34 IPC.

2. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet U/s 173 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the IO and the accused persons were consequently summoned. A formal charge for commission of offence U/sec.379/411/468/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons by my Ld. Predecessor to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. Record transpires that during course of trial, the complainant Mithlesh Kumar who was also the authorised representative of FIR No. 390/09 PS Badarpur 2 of 3 State vs. Alam @ Tiger etc. registered owner of stolen motorcycle compounded the offence U/sec. 379/411/34 IPC and his statement was also recorded to this effect. In view of this, both the accused stand acquitted of offence U/sec. 379/411/34 IPC.

4. Accused is also acquitted for the offence u/s 468/34 IPC as it has been conclusively opined by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in 1995 II A.D(Delhi) 6 State vs. Ravinder Kumar @ Ravi that:­ "In any event, number plate of a scooter, like any other thing fixed on its body, is not a 'document', the making of which may be said to be 'forgery' falling within the ambit of Section 463 and Section 464, or the use of which may become punishable under Section 471 IPC."

5. In view of the same, both the accused persons stand acquitted for the offence u/sec. 379/411/468/34 IPC also. Ordered accordingly.


      

Announced in the open court                                    (Anuj Agarwal)
on 17.08.12                                           MM­01(SE)/Delhi / 17.08.12 




FIR No.  390/09  PS Badarpur                                                    3  of  3