Delhi District Court
State vs Tanishq Chopra on 3 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF RISHABH KAPOOR, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS -05 SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS: DELHI
State Vs. : Tanishq Chopra
FIR No : 746/23 Digitally signed by
U/s : 188 IPC RISHABH RISHABH KAPOOR
P.S. : Vikas Puri KAPOOR Date: 2024.12.03
16:18:32 +0100
JUDGMENT:
1. Criminal Case No. : 23477/2024 2. Date of commission of offence : 27.12.2023 3. Date of institution of the case : 26.06.2024 4. Name of the complainant : State
5. Name of accused, parentage & address : Tanishq Chopra s/o Sh. Sunit Chopra
6. Offenses complained or proved : 188 IPC
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Date on which order was reserved : 08.11.2024
9. Final order : Acquitted
10. Date of final order : 03.12.2024.
State Vs. : Tanishq Chopra FIR No: 746/23 U/s: 188 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 1
1. The accused is facing trial for the offence u/s 188 IPC. The genesis of prosecution story is that on 27.12.2023 at 8:30 PM at Export Surplus Shop KG
-1/292 Block Market, Vikas Puri, Delhi within jurisdiction of PS Vikas Puri, ac-
cused was found to have employed one person namely, Hitesh Rai at his shop without getting his police verification done, thereby accused violated the notifica-
tion no.16076 -175/ACP/Tilak Nagar, dated 05.12.2023 and committed offence u/s 188 IPC. The criminal law was set into motion vide registration of case FIR and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the offence punishable under section 188 IPC.
2. After going through the chargesheet and entire material available on record, cognizance was taken and the accused was summoned. Copy of charge sheet was supplied to him and provisions of Section 207 Cr. P. C. were complied with. On the basis of prima facie evidence, notice of accusation was framed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 188 IPC vide order dated 24.08.2024, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to establish the guilt of accused for alleged offence, prosecution has examined two witnesses in all. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses read as under :-
State Vs. : Tanishq Chopra FIR No: 746/23 U/s: 188 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 2 PW1 HC Makkhan Lal deposed that on 27.12.2023, he along with Ct. Mahender was on patrolling duty and when they reached at Export Surplus Shop, KG1/292 Block Market, Vikas Puri, Delhi they met Hitesh Rai, who was working in the aforesaid shop. On inquiry the afore-named person informed that his police verification was not done by his employer Tanishq Chopra. He also identified accused Tanishq Chopra in Court. Accused found to be violating order no.16076
-175/ACP/Tilak Nagar, dated 05.12.2023 and thereafter he prepared rukka Ex. PW 1/A on the basis of which Ct. Mahender got registered the FIR and returned to the spot along with the copy of the FIR. He deposed that thereafter he prepared site plan Ex. PW 1/B and arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW 1/C. During his cross-examination, he admitted that the order of ACP was not affixed by him in the vicinity of the area where accused resides. He could not state about the number of the departure and arrival entry from PS. PW2 Ct. Mahender deposed on the same lines as that of PW 1 and hence, his entire testimony is not being reproduced to avoid repetition. During his cross examination, he also admitted that he did not affix the copy of order of ACP in the vicinity of the area of residence of accused. He could also could not state about the number of his departure and arrival entry from police station.
4. Accused has admitted the fact of registration of FIR along with Certificate u/s 65 of Indian Evidence Act (Ex. A-1) and Complaint u/s 195 Cr. PC (Ex. A-2) State Vs. : Tanishq Chopra FIR No: 746/23 U/s: 188 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 3 u/s 294 Cr. PC.
5. No other witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. Prosecution evidence was closed. Statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C. Accused stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused did not opt to lead evidence in his defence. Thereafter, final arguments were heard at length.
6. Ld. APP for the State argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is contended that the witnesses have given corroborative statements and the accused is liable to be convicted in this case.
7. It is contended by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case.
8. Before adverting to the merits of present case, let us briefly discuss the position of law with respect to provisions of Section 188 of IPC;
"Section 188 IPC: Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant.--
"Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or State Vs. : Tanishq Chopra FIR No: 746/23 U/s: 188 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 4 tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or trends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Explanation.--It is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. It is sufficient that he knows of the order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm....."
9. In the instant case, the prosecution has alleged disobedience by the accused of the said order no. 16076 -175/ACP/Tilak Nagar, dated 05.12.2023. As submitted by the Ld. Counsel for accused, the promulgation of the said order was not in knowledge of the accused. It would be apt to note the authoritative pronouncement made by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhoop Singh Tyagi v. State, 2002 SCC Online Del 277, it has been observed in that judgment that in order to secure conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 188 IPC, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that (i) there was an order promulgated by a public servant, (ii) such public servant was lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, (iii) The accused necessarily had the knowledge of such order directing them to abstain from an act or to take certain order with certain property in their possession or under their management, (iv) The accused have disobeyed the order having its knowledge, (v) Such disobedience caused or tended to cause (a) obstruction, annoyance or injury or risk of it to any person lawfully employed or (b) danger to human life, health and safety. State Vs. : Tanishq Chopra FIR No: 746/23 U/s: 188 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 5
10. It may be noted that the word 'promulgate' mentioned in section 188 IPC means "making known to the public, to publish, to officially announce. Form of publication may be different but prosecution has to prima facie indicate by placing some material on record to show that the order had been actually 'promulgated'. Where an order u/s 144 CrPC is not served in the manner prescribed under the law, section 188 shall not be applicable. If an accused does not know that an order has been promulgated, the requirement of the Section is not fulfilled.
11. In the present case, in the FIR, it is not mentioned that accused had knowledge of order promulgated by the ACP. In the entire charge-sheet, it has not even been asserted that the alleged order was published or publicized in the locality where the accused resided. Further, neither in charge-sheet nor during evidence, the prosecution has been able to produce any evidence to show that accused had actual knowledge of the aforesaid order promulgated by the ACP concerned.
12. The prosecution has also failed to produce copy of any newspaper etc. wherein such order may have been published. Prosecution also failed to mention the name of the newspaper and date of publication of order in question. It has not even produced any photographs of the said order affixed on any notice board of any of the offices mentioned in the order of the ACP. Thus, there is no evidence produced by the prosecution to show that the notification in question was ever published in any newspaper, affixed on notice boards of any of the offices specified in the order or given any publicity in the general public on radio or T.V. Accordingly, presumption of knowledge of the order, cannot be attributed to the accused.
State Vs. : Tanishq Chopra FIR No: 746/23 U/s: 188 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 6
13. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove one of the essential ingredients that the accused had the knowledge of such order and having its knowledge he had disobeyed the order, which is essential to secure the conviction of the accused as observed above.
14. It is cardinal principle of law that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused, exclusively lies on the prosecution and the case of the prosecution should stand on its own legs. The benefit of doubt, if any, must go in favour of the accused. It is apt to refer to the following observation in the case of Sadhu Singh V/s State of Punjab 1997 (3) Crime 55:
"In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have'. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused."
15. In view of the above examination of the evidences and material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore, accused Tanishq Chopra is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable U/s188 IPC.
16. The bail bonds, if any furnished by accused persons at the time of commencement of trial stands cancelled. Surety, if any stands discharged. Documents, if any shall be returned to its rightful owner as per rules. Endorsement, if any stands cancelled. Case property if any, shall be disposed off after expiration of period to assail this judgment and in case of appeal, as per the directions of Ld. Appellate Court. Case file be consigned to record room after due State Vs. : Tanishq Chopra FIR No: 746/23 U/s: 188 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 7 compliance.
Announced in the open court 13.12.2024 (Rishabh Kapoor) JMFC-05 South West Dwarka Courts, Delhi 13.12.2024 State Vs. : Tanishq Chopra FIR No: 746/23 U/s: 188 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 8