Delhi District Court
State vs . Sachin Parcha on 26 August, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. AKASH JAIN, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE06, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
State vs. Sachin Parcha
FIR No : 330/02
U/s : 406/420 IPC
PS : Parliament Street
JUDGMENT
a) Sl. No. of the case : 372/02
b) Unique Case ID No. : 02403R0006492003
c) Name of the complainant : Sh. Ajay Arora
d) Name, parentage & address
of accused : Sachin Parcha S/o R.S. Parcha
R/o Plot No.7273, Chattarpur Pahari,
Mehrauli, New Delhi.
e) Offences complained of : 406/420 IPC
f) The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) Final Judgment : Acquitted
h) Date of institution of case : 28.03.2003
i) Date of final arguments : 03.08.2013
j) Date of Judgment : 26.08.2013
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
1. In the present case chargesheet was filed by the State under Sections 406/420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter mentioned as 'IPC') against the accused Sachin Parcha on 28.03.2003. The case of the prosecution is that in or around December, 2002, accused was entrusted with the CC NO. 372/02 FIR No.330/02 Page no. 1 of 9 possession of car bearing registration no. HR31B3873 by the complainant under a Hire Purchase Agreement with the condition that during the subsistence of Hire Purchase Agreement accused shall not sell or dispose of the vehicle and despite the said agreement in violation of its condition, accused disposed of the vehicle and misappropriated the same to his own use with dishonest or fraudulent intention and thereby committed the offence punishable under section 406/420 of IPC.
2. On the basis of aforesaid chargesheet, Ld. Predecessor Court took cognizance of the offences under section 406/420 IPC against the accused. Upon appearance of the accused, documents were supplied to him in compliance of section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter mentioned as 'Cr.P.C.'). Charge under section 406 IPC was consequently framed against the accused by Ld. Predecessor Court to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on 05.07.2005. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for prosecution evidence.
3. In supports of its case prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses. PW1 is Subhash, who deposed that on 14.02.2003, he was posted CC NO. 372/02 FIR No.330/02 Page no. 2 of 9 as Supervisor with M/s Ronok Motor at B89, Wazirpur, Delhi and one Tata Sumo bearing registration no. HR31B3873 was lying at the said service station before he had joined the service at M/s Ronok Motor. He deposed that the said Tata Sumo was in accidental condition and was not repaired due to non payment by the owner namely Sachin Parcha. He further deposed that they repeatedly requested the owner of said vehicle for payment which was however, not responded. He further deposed that after some time the above said vehicle was seized by the police officials vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/A.
4. PW2 is Rajeev Mohan, who was the clerk of Bank of Baroda, Safdarjung Hospital Branch, Delhi. He brought the statement of bank account in respect of accused Sachin Parcha which is Ex. PW2/A.
5. PW3 is Sanjeev Sharma, who deposed that he worked as Assistant Manager, Recovery and Collection since 2002 till 29 th September 2006 in Apeejay Finance Group Pvt. Ltd.. He further deposed that vehicle bearing no.HR31B3873 was financed to Sachin Parcha and the same was under
CC NO. 372/02 FIR No.330/02 Page no. 3 of 9 tremendous record and the vehicle was also not traceable. He further deposed that on 14.02.2003 before Ms. Manju Goel, (the then Ld. ASJ, Delhi), Sachin Parcha had paid Rs.50,000/ in court which was received by him against his partial liability vide receipt Mark A.
6. PW4 is Ajay Arora who deposed that he was working as Senior Executive (collection), Apeejay Finance Group Pvt. Ltd. from 1998 to 2004. He deposed that on 30.08.2002, he had made a complaint Ex. PW4/A at PS Parliament Street against accused Sachin Parcha for failing to pay his debt, against finance made by the said company for the vehicle in question.
7. PW5 is Ct. Brij Nandan, who deposed that on 12.02.2003, he alongwith IO SI Sanjiv Mandal had gone to the shop of accused situated outside Safdarjung Hospital, however, accused was not found there. Thereafter, he alongwith IO had gone to the residence of accused situated at Chattarpur, New Delhi. The accused was found there. PW5 interrogated and arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW5/A and personally searched the accused vide personal search memo Ex. PW5/B. Thereafter, IO recorded CC NO. 372/02 FIR No.330/02 Page no. 4 of 9 the disclosure statement of accused Ex. PW5/C and thereafter, PW5 alongwith IO and accused had gone to Wazirpur Industrial Area and the case property i.e. vehicle in question Tata Sumo was found. PW5 further deposed that the owner of the said vehicle was inquired and notice u/s 160 Cr.P.C. was served pursuant thereto by the IO. Accused was correctly identified by the witnesses.
8. PW6 is Ct. Baljinder who deposed that on 14.02.2003, he had joined the investigation in the present case. He further deposed that he alongwith IO had gone to Ronok Motor Service, Wazirpur Industrial Area where they found one Tata Sumo bearing no.HR31B3873. The said vehicle was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/A which was subsequently deposited in malkhana. During crossexamination, the witness admitted that the said Tata Sumo was in accidental condition and was not road worthy. He further deposed that he did not know that the said vehicle was sold and that the sale proceeds of the same were given to the complainant in settlement of their dues.
CC NO. 372/02 FIR No.330/02 Page no. 5 of 9
9. PW7 is IO SI Sanjeev Mandal, who deposed that on 30.08.2002, the complaint of Apeejay, Finance against accused Sachin Parcha was marked to him and after preliminary inquiry on 23.11.2002, case was registered on the complaint Ex. PW4/A and investigation was commenced. He further deposed that during the course of investigation he collected the statements of account and bank details of accused Sachin Parcha from Bank of Baroda, Safdarjung Hospital Branch. He further deposed that the documents were seized by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW7/A. Accused was arrested vide memo Ex. PW5/A and his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex. PW5/B. Disclosure statement of accused is Ex. PW5/C. Vehicle in question was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/A. The accused was correctly identified by the witness in the court.
10. Registration of FIR in question i.e. 330/02 vide DD no.6/A on 28.11.2002 was admitted by the accused. Thereafter, on submissions made by Ld. APP for state, prosecution evidence was closed and the matter was fixed for recording of statement of accused.
CC NO. 372/02 FIR No.330/02 Page no. 6 of 9
11. At the stage of recording of statement of accused it was pointed out by counsel for accused that no incriminating evidence is found against the accused during evidence. This court found merits in the submissions made on behalf of accused. Admittedly, vehicle in question was seized by the police in accidental condition from M/s Ronok Motors and the same was later sold by the accused in compliance of orders passed by then Ld. ASJ, New Delhi District dated 01.05.2003 and 22.06.2003. Moreover, prosecution failed to bring any evidence on record as to whether the sale proceeds of the above said vehicle had been misappropriated by the accused for his own use. In the absence of any incriminating evidence against the accused, statement of accused u/s 313 r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with. It was submitted on behalf of accused that he did not wish to lead any defence evidence, as such the matter was fixed for final arguments.
12. Final arguments were heard on behalf of Ld. APP for state and the accused. After perusal of the record this court is of the view that in order to bring home guilt of the accused for the offence under section 406 IPC, the CC NO. 372/02 FIR No.330/02 Page no. 7 of 9 prosecution was required to prove following fact:
i) That the accused Sachin Parcha being entrusted with the possession of vehicle in question bearing registration no.HR31B 3873 by complainant, dishonestly violated the terms of Hire Purchase Agreement and sold the vehicle in question and misappropriated the sale proceeds to his own use with dishonest or fraudulent intention;
13. Perusal of the record shows that during the pendency of bail application of accused Sachin Parcha in this case before Ld. ASJ, New Delhi District, it was directed by the court vide order dated 01.05.2003 and 22.06.2003, that accused/ applicant may take necessary steps to sell the vehicle in question and get the sale proceeds of the same adjusted towards loan amount due to be paid to the complainant. Perusal of order dated 15.10.2003, makes it apparent that the vehicle in question was sold by the applicant/ accused on directions of the court for Rs.35,000/ and out of the said amount Rs.10,000/ was paid to the complainant by the accused on the same day and some time was sought by the accused to pay balance amount of Rs.25,000/ to the complainant.
CC NO. 372/02 FIR No.330/02 Page no. 8 of 9
14. All the above mentioned orders form part of record. In these circumstances, it is clear that the vehicle in question was not sold by the accused on his own, but in compliance of directions of the court. It is further not proved on record by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt that the sale proceeds were misappropriated by the accused for his own use.
15. In these circumstances, it may be safely concluded that the case of prosecution is not proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused Sachin Parcha S/o R.S. Parcha is thus acquitted of the offence under section 406 IPC.
Announced in the open Court (Akash Jain)
on 26.08.2013 Metropolitan Magistrate06,
Patiala House Court,
New Delhi
CC NO. 372/02 FIR No.330/02 Page no. 9 of 9