Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Ndps Act:(Central District):Tis ... vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 21 March, 2018

                                        1 



IN THE COURT OF SH.NARINDER KUMAR:SPECIAL JUDGE­2
NDPS ACT:(CENTRAL DISTRICT):TIS HAZARI COURT:DELHI

Crl. Rev. No. 191/2018          

Date of institution: 17.03.2018     Decided on: 21.03.2018

Sayed Nusrat Ali
S/o Late Sh. Sayed Ayub Ali,
R/o D­11/127, Millat Apartment,
Zakir Nagar, New Delhi.
                                                     .....Petitioner

                              Versus

State (NCT of Delhi)
Through Its Secretary.                                ....Respondent
                               
                                  JUDGMENT

Petitioner   herein   is   feeling   aggrieved   by   order dated   20.02.2018   passed   by   learned   Chief   Metropolitan Magistrate, whereby charge for offence under Section 419 IPC & 420 IPC has been framed against him in case FIR No.  2  238/08 PS EOW Cell.

2. As per accusation of charge, accused­ petitioner, during the period from 01.02.2006 to  01.03.2007 obtained one parking sticker for his vehicle car bearing no. DL 2CJ 1936   from   the   office   of   ACP   (Security),   Delhi   Police Headquarters   by   claiming   himself   to   be   special correspondent with Hindustan Time and H. T. Media Ltd., from time to time.

3. The   contention   raised   by   learned   counsel   for petitioner is that prosecution has not placed on record any material   to   suggest   that   accused­   petitioner   ever impersonated for the purpose of getting the parking sticker issued and as such no prima facie having been made out against him,  revision petition  deserves to be  allowed  and the impugned deserves to be set aside.

 3 

4. Parking sticker in question is said to have been obtained in respect of vehicle no. DL 2C J 1936 by writing a letter   to   ACP   (Security),   Police   Head   Quarters.   Applicant claimed   in   the   application   that   he   was     Special Correspondent  with Hindustan Times.

5. Undisputedly, petitioner owned said vehicle and it was seized by the police from him while parking sticker meant for parking at Delhi Police Head Quarter was found lying   affixed   on   it   on   18.12.2008,   when   arrested   in connection with investigation of case FIR No. 98/2008, PS Chanakyapuri.

6. In the application/letter of request submitted to ACP   (Security)   for   issuance   of   parking   sticker,   applicant claimed himself to be Special Correspondent of Hindustan Times.   Case of prosecution is that accused­ petitioner was not   employed   as   Special   Correspondent   with   Hindustan  4  Times or H. T. Media.

7. In   the   course   of   arguments,   petitioner   and   his counsel admit that application (Mark Q1) was submitted by petitioner to the ACP (Security) Delhi Police Head Quarters, New   Delhi.     No   date   of   submission   of   this   application   is available on it.   Petitioner and his counsel submit that this application was submitted somewhere in September, 2008 and that parking sticker was applied for his Zen car bearing registration no. DL 2CJ 1936.

8. The   parking   sticker   was   issued   under   the signatures of the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic), Delhi   vide   Sl.   no.   200   and   its   validity   was   last   of   all extended   upto 31.12.2008.     Registration number of the vehicle for which it was issued also finds mention on the right side top corner of said sticker.

9. Once the petitioner does not dispute submission  5  of the application (Mark Q1) or issuance of parking sticker to   enter   Police   Head   Quarter,   for   the   said   vehicle,   point raised by counsel for petitioner before learned Trial Court challenging   opinion   of   the   Government   Examiner   on questioned documents relegates to the background.

10. Petitioner and his counsel submit, in the course of   arguments,   that   in   the   application   inadvertently petitioner mentioned his reference at the bottom of the said application   as   Hindustan   Times   in   place   of   Hindustan Today.

11. Learned   counsel   for   petitioner   has   drawn attention of the Court to the information available in a table page 18 of the Trial Court record which depicts different dates   of   issuance   of   parking   stickers   to   the   petitioner   in respect of the same vehicle.  He also drawn attention to the register   containing   the   entries   dated   01.08.2008   to  6  31.12.2008 to depict that the particulars of the applicant - petitioner   mentioned   against   Sl.   no.   200   reveal   that   his posting   /   reference   was   with   Hindustan   Today   as   Chief Editor, 98 Ansari Road, Darya Ganj and not with Hindustan Times, as its Special Correspondent.

12. The submission  put forth by the petitioner and his counsel finds support from the contents of entry at Sl. No.   200   of   the   aforesaid   register   and   from   the   Table submitted   by   the   police.     From   the   entries   made   in   the table, it transpires that the petitioner was not issued parking sticker for the said vehicle for the first time and rather he had already been issued sticker for the said vehicle several times.  There is nothing on record to suggest that any such verification was got made by the police.

It   appears   that   the   dealing   hand   recorded   this entry   at   Sl.   No.   200,   in   view   of   the   previous     record available with him, otherwise the dealing hand would not  7  have   used   words   "Hindustan   Today"   and   he   would   have mentioned the reference of the applicant in this column  as "Hindustan Times".  In such a situation, he would have also not  mentioned   in   the   said   column  the   designation  of  the applicant as Chief Editor and rather mentioned the same as Special   Correspondent   as   finds   mentioned   in   the application.

13.  During investigation, no document was collected to   the   effect   that   the   petitioner   was   not   employed   with Hindustan Today.    So   undisputedly,   during   the   relevant period   i.e.   August/September,   2008,   petitioner   was employed with Hindustan Today.

14. Letter   dated   23.12.2008   issued   by   Senior Executive (Legal) to Inspector, Anti Forgery Section, EOW, Crime   Branch   in   response   to   his   letter   dated   23.12.2008 would   reveal   that   inquiry   regarding   employment   of   the  8  petitioner   was   made   only   from   H.   T.   Media   Ltd. Undisputedly, there is nothing on record to suggest that any inquiry was made by the IO from Hindustan Today.    Copy of letter dated 23.12.2008 does not form part of the record, as submitted on behalf of the State.

15. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that digits '07' pertain to the year of issuance of the identity card.  It is submitted that he is employed with Hindustan Today from 2006 and identity card was issued to him in the year 2007.

16. Petitioner is, even today, carrying with him his identity card issued by Hindustan Today which depicts his designation   as   Editor­in­Chief/   employee   ID:

HT/DL/001/07.       Had   the   IO   ever   sought   information regarding   employment   of   the   petitioner   from   Hindustan Today, on the basis of entry at sl. No.200, the result would have been different. 
 9 

17. In   the   given   circumstances,   on   submission   of challan on the basis of report collected from H. T. Media, in absence of any report from Hindustan Today, it is difficult to say that petitioner impersonated to ACP (Security), Delhi Police Head Quarter, New Delhi for the purpose of issuance of parking sticker.   Rather, it appears to be a case only of inadvertent mistake on the part of the petitioner in writing words "Hindustan Times" in place of "Hindustan Today" in the application Mark Q1.

18. As regards photocopies of the identity card of the petitioner, said to have been collected during investigation of case FIR No. 300/07, these depict the employment of the petitioner   with   Hindustan   Times.     Learned   counsel   for petitioner submits that these photocopies are said to be part of record of said case FIR No. 300/07 PS I. P. Estate and were not seized during investigation of this case.

 10 

19. The   fact   remains   that   IO   did   not   make   any verification from the office of Hindustan Today regarding employment of the petitioner ­applicant.   Rather this case being a case on an inadvertent mistake on the part of the petitioner in writing down word "Times" instead of "Today", in the address given by him, in the application submitted to the   ACP   (Security),   it   cannot   be   said   that   the   accused­ petitioner   impersonated   in   getting   issued   parking   sticker from time to time.

20. As a result, impugned order passed by Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate deserves to be set aside.

21. Accordingly, while allowing the revision petition, impugned order dated 20.02.2018 is hereby set aside and the petitioner is discharged in the case.

 11 

22. Trial court record be sent back.   File of revision petition be consigned to record room. 

Announced in the open Court Digitally signed by NARINDER on this 21th day of March, 2018NARINDER KUMAR KUMAR Date:

2018.03.21 16:34:56 +0530 (NARINDER KUMAR)     SPECIAL JUDGE, NDPS­02 (CENTRAL)              TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI