Delhi District Court
State vs Raju @ Sunder on 13 February, 2007
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJ KAPOOR: MM: KARKARDOOMA
COURTS: DELHI
FIR NO.414/02
U/S 25 Arms Act
State Vs Raju @ Sunder
P.S. Shahdara
JUDGEMENT :355 Cr.P.C
a) the serial number of the case : 441/03
b) the date of the commission : 12/11/02 of th offence
c) the name of the complainant : SI Om Dutt (if any)
d) the name of the accused : Raju @ Sunder s/o sh. Kisan Lal r/o person, and his parentage H. No. 46/3 B, East Azad Nagar, and residence Krishna Nagar, Delhi.
e) the offence complained of or : U/s 25 Arms Act proved
f) the plea of the accused and : Pleaded not guilty.
his examination if any
g) final order : Acquitted
h) date of such order : 13/02/07
e) a brief statement of the reasons for the decision:-
Briefly facts of the case are that accused is facing trial on the allegations of the prosecution that on 12.11.02 at about 9 pm at G T Road, Opposite Shyam Lal College, Shahdara, Delhi, accused was found in possession of one buttondar knife in contravention of notification issued by Delhi Admn. Accordingly, accused was arrested and booked for the offence u/s 25 Arms Act.2
2. After completion of the usual investigation charge sheet was filed to the court. Copies were supplied to the accused.
3. Arguments on charge were heard, charge u/s 25 Arms Act was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Thereafter, the prosecution has examined 2 witnesses namely PW1 ASI Dinesh-duty officer and PW2 Ct. Virender Singh -recovery witness.
5. After that the prosecution evidence was closed and statement of accused u/s 281 Cr. P.C. was recorded in which the defence of the accused was of denial simplicitor. However, no defence evidence was led by the accused.
6. Arguments of both sides were heard. I have perused testimonies of above said witnesses. In this case PW2 is a recovery witness and PW2 is a formal witness. Both these witnesses are official witnesses.
Further, in this case no public person has been made witness by the IO in respect of recovery of knife . There is also no DD entry on record regarding their departure and return to PS. Since in this case no public person has been made witness so the seizure memo and search 3 memo remains unsigned by any public witness therefore keeping in view the citation 'Md. Raffiq Vs State - 2000 Cri. L.J. 2401 (Delhi High Court)' the benefit of which goes to the accused. Therefore, keeping in view the above facts and circumstances PE was closed and request of ld. APP for further PE was declined as no fruitful purpose would be served in examining rest of the witnesses. Further, there is no memo regarding handing over the seal to Constable. Therefore, keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case I acquit the accused by giving him benefit of doubt. His bail bond is cancelled and surety is discharged. File be consigned to RR. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURTS ON THIS 13.02.2007 ( RAJ KAPOOR) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI