Delhi District Court
Criminal Revision No. 89/2002, Titled ... vs . State. on 22 February, 2012
FIR No. 814/2000 1 P.S. Mangol Puri (Crime Branch)
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANISH GUPTA, ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (OUTER DISTRICT), ROHINI
COURTS , DELHI
FIR No. 814/2000
Unique Case ID No. 02404R0144532006
Police Station Mangol Puri (Crime Branch)
Under Section 292/34 of the Indian Penal Code
State v. Raj Kumar Prasad & Ors.
JUDGEMENT
(a) Serial number of the case :121/2
(b)Date of the commission of the offence :26.09.2000
(c)Name of the complainant :SI Jaiveer Singh, Anti
Kidnapping Section, Crime
Branch, Dev Nagar, Delhi.
(d)Name of the accused & address :(1). Raj Kumar Prasad,
S/o late Sh. Ram Chander
Raut, R/o D5, Pushpanjali
Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi.
(2). Gopal Shankar Narain
Pillai S/o Shri P.G. Pillai,
R/o Site III/79, Vikas Puri,
opposite Kerala School,
Delhi.
Contd.....
FIR No. 814/2000 2 P.S. Mangol Puri (Crime Branch)
(3). Arun Raj Malhotra S/o
Sh. Brij Lal Malhotra, R/o
114, Shreshta Vihar, P.S.
Anand Vihar, Delhi.
(Discharged by Ld. ASJ,
Delhi vide order dated
1.2.2003)
(e)Charge against the accused :292/34 IPC
(f)Plea of the accused :Pleaded not guilty
(g)Final order :Both accused persons
namely Raj Kumar Prasad
and Gopal Shankar Narain
Pillai acquitted.
(h)Date of such order :22.02.2012
Date of Institution :26.09.2001
Date on which arguments heard and
Judgment reserved. :14.02.2012
Date of Judgment :22.02.2012
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR DECISION
1. Chargesheet in the present case was filed on behalf of the state on 26.9.2001 and after taking cognizance of the offence, the accused Contd.....
FIR No. 814/2000 3 P.S. Mangol Puri (Crime Branch) persons were summoned and thereafter copies of challan and documents were supplied to them.
2. On 07.08.2002, notice of accusation u/s 251 Cr.P.C. was framed against all the three accused persons. All three accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The accused Arun Raj Malhotra has preferred the criminal revision petition against the order dated 7.8.2002 on which date notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C. was framed. The Ld. ASJ, Delhi has discharged the accused Arun Raj Malhotra in this case as per order dated 1.2.2003 passed in criminal revision no. 89/2002, titled as Arun Raj Malhotra Vs. State. Remaining two accused persons had faced trial in this case.
4. The allegations against the accused persons are that on 26.09.2000 at 5:45 PM at D5, Pushpanjali Enclave, the accused persons were found in possession of obscene books/magazines etc. which were being possessed for sale and distribution in furtherance of their common intention and thus the accused persons committed an offence punishable u/s 292/34 IPC.
Contd.....
FIR No. 814/2000 4 P.S. Mangol Puri (Crime Branch)
5. The prosecution has cited 8 witnesses as per the list of prosecution witnesses, however, the prosecution has been able to examine PW1 SI Jaivir Singh, PW2 HC Tejpal, PW3 Shri M.S. Puri, PW4 Ct. Karamvir and PW5 Shri K.G. Mathur. No other witness has been examined on behalf of state.
6. I have already heard final arguments and perused the record.
7. After closing of PE the statement of both accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Both accused persons submitted that they do not want to lead any defence evidence.
8. The present chargesheet has been filed by Crime Branch, Delhi.
9. PW1 deposed that on 26.9.2000 he was posted in Anti kidnapping Section of Crime Branch, Dev Nagar, and on that day at about 4:45 PM while he was present in the crime branch office at Dev Nagar he received a secret information that owners of Galaxy Entertainers Pvt. Ltd. have closed their office from Shanker Garden and have opened the office at D5, Pushpanjali Enclave and they used to circulate obscene literature and also used to screen the adult movies on cable. On this secret information a raid was conducted at D5, Pushpanjali Contd.....
FIR No. 814/2000 5 P.S. Mangol Puri (Crime Branch) Enclave and a raiding party consisting of SI Jaivir Singh, ASI Daya Chand, Ct. Jasbir and Ct. Karambir was formed. PW1 stated that first they reached in the said colony and asked 45 persons to join the raid but none agreed. Thereafter they reached at second floor of premises no. D5, Pushpanjali Enclave where both the accused persons namely Raj Kumar and Gopal Shankar Narain Pillai were found present. He further stated that various obscene books which were lying there were seized and the said books and material were having obscene photographs and they were taken into possession without sealing the same. He stated that subsequently he prepared tehrir Ex. PW1/B and the same was sent to the PS Mangol Puri through Ct. Karambir for registration of FIR and further investigation was handed over to SI Ram Avtar who reached at spot and conducted further investigation. He stated that both the accused and case property was handed over to him and he i.e. SI Ram Avtar prepared the site plan Ex. PW1/C at his instance. Case property was shown to the witness and he stated that the property seized by him is not sealed. In cross examination PW1 stated that it is correct that the place where he went and seized the articles is surrounded by residential houses and in the building, where he visited, there were people living on ground floor as well as on the first floor. He stated that he requested the people living on ground floor as well as on the first Contd.....
FIR No. 814/2000 6 P.S. Mangol Puri (Crime Branch) floor as well as adjoining houses to join the raid but none agreed. He stated that he did inquire the names of the persons who refused to join but nobody disclosed their names. The said witness again stated that he did not enter the houses to find out if somebody was living there or not. PW1 stated in the cross examination that he did not obtain the signatures of Ct. Jasbir on the recovery memo prepared by him and further stated that he did not think it necessary to obtain his signatures. He denied the suggestion that no recovery memo was made by him on the spot. He stated that he prepared only one recovery memo which is in Hindi as well as in English.
10.PW2 is the duty officer who recorded the case FIR in question which is Ex. PW2/A.
11.PW3 Shri M.S. Puri stated that he had given second floor to Shri Raj Kumar on rent in his house no. D5, Pushpanjali Enclave. He stated that he cannot identify Shri Raj Kumar. He was cross examined by Ld. APP for state. In cross examination he stated that it is wrong to suggest that he had given his house to Raj Kumar on rent. He denied the suggestion that the accused had opened Galaxy Entertainment in his rented premises. He stated that he is not aware whether the accused Raj Kumar alongwith Gopal Shankar Narain Pillai were Contd.....
FIR No. 814/2000 7 P.S. Mangol Puri (Crime Branch) working in the premises. Subsequently in the same cross examination PW3 admitted that he used to obtain a sum of Rs. 3500/ from the accused per month. The witness has blown hot and cold in the same breath. At one point of time he stated that he had given the premises on rent to Raj Kumar and on the other hand he had denied the suggestion that he had let out his house to Raj Kumar on rent. He has not supported the case of the prosecution.
12.PW4 Ct. Karambir stated that on 26.9.2000 he was posted in Crime Branch, Dev Nagar and on that day he alongwith other police officials namely SI Jaivir Singh, ASI Daya Chand and Ct. Jasbir Singh reached D5, Pushpanjali Enclave in Govt. vehicle bearing registration no. DL1V 2859. His further examination in chief was deferred for want of case property. Thereafter the said witness did not turn up. Incomplete testimony of PW4 cannot be read into evidence. He was not tendered for cross examination as his chief examination itself was incomplete, hence, the testimony of PW4 cannot be relied upon.
13.PW5 Shri K.G. Mathur stated that he is working as STA in the office of ROC Delhi and Haryana and he has brought the summoned record. The Memorandum and Articles of Association of Galaxy Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. is Ex. PW5/A. PW5 stated that as per Contd.....
FIR No. 814/2000 8 P.S. Mangol Puri (Crime Branch) record, at the time of incorporation, the directors of company were Gopal Shankar Narain Pillai and Raj Kumar and it was incorporated on 10.9.1998. He further stated that on 17.11.2001 Shri Raj Kumar Prasad had resigned from the directorship of the said company and Gopal Shankar Narain Pillai resigned on 20.3.2003. Cross examination of PW5 is nil despite opportunity given. No other witness has been examined on behalf of state.
14.Subsequently, statements of accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The accused persons have taken the stand of general denial of allegations and stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. They stated that the prosecution witnesses have deposed falsely being interested witnesses. Accused persons preferred not to lead any defence evidence. ASI Daya Chand has not been examined in this case. He was the member of the raiding party. The testimony of PW4 is incomplete, hence, cannot be relied upon. SI Ram Avtar who also conducted further investigation in this case has not been examined as witness in this case. Moreover, the case property was taken into possession without sealing the same which is reflected in the testimony of PW1. It is also relevant to note that PW5 Shri K.G. Mathur has not provided the addresses of the accused Contd.....
FIR No. 814/2000 9 P.S. Mangol Puri (Crime Branch) persons in his testimony. Moreover, no public witness was joined in the investigation.
15.In view of above detailed facts and circumstances and reasons given and observation made, the case of the prosecution fails, and accordingly, both accused persons namely Gopal Shankar Narain Pillai and Raj Kumar Prasad are hereby acquitted of the charge framed in the present case u/s 292/34 IPC. Endorsement, if any, on the documents be cancelled. File be consigned to record room after completing the necessary formalities.
Passed and announced in the open court today i.e. 22.02.2012 (MANISH GUPTA) ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (OUTER DISTRICT) ROHINI COURTS, DELHI Contd.....