Delhi District Court
State vs Jagmohan Singh on 31 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. HIMANSHI TYAGI, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE-03,
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
JUDGMENT
FIR No. 183/2010
Unique Case ID no. 301176/2016
Title State Vs. Jagmohan Singh
Name of Complainant SI Nasib Singh
Name of Accused Jagmohan Singh S/o Late Sh.
Sunder Singh, R/o 7/8, First Floor,
Singh Sabha Road, Ghantaghar,
Delhi-110007.
Date of institution of challan 18.07.2012
Date of arguments 31.07.2025
Date of pronouncement 31.07.2025
Offence complained of U/s 286 IPC r/w sections 5/9B
Explosives Act
Offene charged with U/s 286 IPC r/w sections 5/9B
Explosives Act
Plea of the accused Not Guilty
Final order Acquitted
State Vs. Jagmohan Singh Page no. 1/19
Digitally
signed by
HIMANSHI
HIMANSHI TYAGI
TYAGI Date:
2025.07.31
16:39:29
+0530
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
01. Succinctly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 28.10.2010 SI Nasib Singh of Operation Cell ( North District), Delhi was on patrolling duty and when he reached at Bada Gol Chakker, Roop Nagar at 03:00 p.m., he met with one secret informer who informed him about the illegal storage of huge quantity of fireworks kept in an ignorant manner in shop of Sardar Jagmohan Singh. The raiding party was constituted, a raid was conducted at the shop of the accused on 29.10.2010 at about 03:20 pm and he was found in possession of 9470 kg of manufactured fireworks. During enquiry Sardar Jagmohan Singh was asked to show the license. As per the licence no. E/NC/DL/24/29(E-12077) dated 31.03.1991 produced by the accused, he could possess 1500 kg of fireworks for sale. In addition thereto, the accused had permission to store 500 kg on temporary basis. Accused was allowed to keep 2000 kg of the firecrackers. Since the accused could not explain the possession of excess quantity of 7470 kg of fireworks, the same was seized. Thereafter, the rukka was endorsed and sent for registration of the case. Accused was arrested. Samples were drawn and were sent to FSL. After completion of investigation and obtaining the result from FSL, the chargesheet was filed.
02. Complete set of charge sheet and other documents were supplied to the accused. After hearing arguments, charge for offences punishable under section 286 IPC and Section 9B Explosives Act was framed upon State Vs. Jagmohan Singh Page no. 2/19 Digitally signed by HIMANSHI HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2025.07.31 16:39:34 +0530 the accused on 09.04.2015 by the Ld Predecessor of the court, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
03. The prosecution cited 14 witness. During prosecution evidence, 06 witnesses have been examined.
04. In terms of Section 294 Cr.P.C., accused has not disputed the genuineness of copy of FIR no 183/2010 Ex AD-1, copy of FIR no 321/2011 Ex AD-2, Report of Petroleum and Explosives Organisation (PESO) Ex AD-3, Letter sent to PESO Ex AD-4, copy of register no 19 Ex AD-5 and DD no 20, without prejudice to his rights and defence and the relevant witnesses were dropped from the list of the witnesses by the Ld Predecessor of the court. PW Ct Yogendra Giri, PW Ajay Rastogi and PW SI Om Dutt has passed away during the pendency of trial and they could not be examined by the prosecution.
05. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined following witnesses:
06. PW-1 is SI Rishi Pal who was part of the raiding team and has deposed regarding the proceedings of raid on the date of incident and subsequent investigation. He deposed that on 28.10.2010, he along with SI Naseeb, Constable Yogender, Constable Adesh and Constable Sanjeev were on patrolling duty, they left the police station after making the departure entry vide DD No. 20, at around 3:00PM, they went to the Gol Chakar (Traffic Circle), Kamla Nagar where a secret informer State Vs. Jagmohan Singh Page no. 3/19 Digitally signed by HIMANSHI HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2025.07.31 16:39:40 +0530 informed SI Naseeb Singh that a huge quantity of Fire Works have been illegally stored in Shop No. 9K, 6299 Kolapur Road. He further deposed that SI Naseeb Singh telephonically informed Inspector Operation Cell Sh. Yugvender Singh, they reached the said shop, accused produced his license according to which he was entitled for storage of 2000 kilograms of fire works, fireworks beyond the permitted limit was found, Ct Yogender came with a private tempo bearing No. DL1LG6699 and two government tempo bearing No. DL1LD5113 or 5117 and DL1LM6765. 2000 kilograms of fire works were weighed and handed over to accused Jagmohan Singh. He further deposed that the remaining fire works were taken to to Inder Dharam Kanta at K101, Old Shiv Mandir, G. T. Road to weigh the same and after it the same were deposited in Malkhana. He also deposed that IO withdrew 20 kgs each for the sample purposes, and the total weight of the crackers was about 7470 kgs, SI Naseeb Singh prepared the Tehrir/complaint, got the FIR registered and investigation was assigned to ASI Ranbir Singh. He was cross examined at length by defence counsel.
07. PW-2 is Retd SI Naseem Singh. He also conducted the raid as well as the investigation in the present case and has deposed regarding the same on same lines as PW1.The witnesses was cross examined at length by Ld. counsel for accused.
08. PW-3 is Retd SI Rajendra Singh who was the Duty officer posted in PS Roop Nagar on 29.10.2021. He deposed about the rukka, State Vs. Jagmohan Singh Page no. 4/19 Digitally signed by HIMANSHI HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2025.07.31 16:39:46 +0530 registration of FIR, DD no 20A and produced the FIR register before the court. The witnesses was duly cross examined by Ld. counsel for accused.
09. PW-4 is ASI Sanjeev Kumar was also the part of the raiding team. He deposed about the raid and investigation on the same lines as PW1 and PW2.The witnesses was duly cross examined by Ld. counsel for accused.
10. PW-5 is Retd SI Ranvir Singh who deposed that on 29.10.2010, Ct. Rajbir came at the office of Operation Cell and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka of the present case for further investigation. Her deposed that he went to the spot at Jaggi Fireworks, 9 K, Kamla Nagar, Delhi, he met with St Naseeb Singh, ASI Rishi Pal, Ct. Yogender Giri, Ct. Sanjeev, Ct. Aadesh and accused Sardar Jagmohan Singh, inspected the spot and prepared site plan Ex. PW-2/D, accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW-1/A, conducted personal search of accused vide personal search memo Ex. PW-1/B and recorded statement of all police staff U/s 161 Cr.PC. He further deposed that he prepared a letter addressed to PESO Faridabad, Haryana for safe custody of explosive substances and handed over the same to ASI Rishi Pal for further handing over the same at the office of PESO Faridabad, Haryana and on 01.11.2010, further investigation of the case was marked to SI Om Dutt and he handed over the case file to him. He was cross examined at length by the accused.
State Vs. Jagmohan Singh Digitally Page no. 5/19
signed by
HIMANSHI
HIMANSHI TYAGI
TYAGI Date:
2025.07.31
16:39:51
+0530
11. PW-6 is Insp Prabhanshu Kumar who deposed that after the completion of investigation, filed was marked to him for filing the chargesheet before the court and he filed the same. He was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunity.
12. File was received on 28.06.2025 from the court of Ld JMFC-05, Central, THC, Delhi pursuant to transfer of PS Roop Nagar to the newly created court of the undersigned vide order no 16/DHC/Gaz-IIB/G-7/ VI.E2(a)2025 dated 30.05.2025 f the Hon'ble High Court, Delhi.
13. PE was closed on 28.06.2025 upon submission of the Ld APP. After the Prosecution evidence was closed, the entire incriminating evidence was put to accused, in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the allegations and tendered explanation that he had been falsely implicated and nothing was recovered from his possession.
ARGUMENTS:
14. Final arguments heard from Ld. APP for the State and from Ld. Counsel for accused. During final arguments, the Ld. APP urged that testimonies of the material witnesses have remained unchallenged in the cross examination and there is no reason to doubt their testimonies.
Ld. APP for State argued that the prosecution with the help of the witnesses examined in this case has proved the recovery of explosive State Vs. Jagmohan Singh Page no. 6/19 Digitally signed by HIMANSHI HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2025.07.31 16:39:58 +0530 substance from the possession of accused and accused was found in the possession of the said explosive substances and that accused did not lead any evidence to disprove the case of the prosecution while the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
15. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused argued that no public witness has been examined to prove the recovery of firecrackers/explosives from the possession of the accused. It was also argued that there are major contradictions in the testimonies of PWs examined by the prosecution, the accused had valid license for sale of the firecrackers, the recovery of firecrackers allegedly beyond permissible limits has been planted upon the accused and the accused has been falsely implicated in this case. Therefore, accused be acquitted in this case.
FINDINGS AND REASONS THEREOF:-
16. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused at length. I have also carefully perused the entire judicial record and carefully appreciated the evidence lead by the prosecution.
17. It is trite to mention at the outset that the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent and therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. This general burden never shifts and it always rests on the prosecution. Accused is entitled to the benefit of State Vs. Jagmohan Singh Page no. 7/19 Digitally signed by HIMANSHI HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2025.07.31 16:40:04 +0530 every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and any such doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal.
18. In the present matter, charge was framed against the accused u/s 9B Explosive Act 1884 read with Section 286 IPC. It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused was found in possession 7470 kilograms of fire crackers (explosives substance) at his firecrackers shop which was beyond the total permitted quantity of 2000 kilograms of his license and the same was in contravention of Explosives Rules, 2008.
19. At this juncture, I consider it appropriate to discuss the rele-
vant provisions of law applicable in cases of search and seizure by po- lice officials.
19.1 Section 100(4) Cr.P.C states that, "Before making a search under this Chapters, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or of any other lo- cality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do".
19.2 Section 37 Cr.P.C. states that, "every person is bound to as- sist a Magistrate or police officer reasonably demanding his aid-
State Vs. Jagmohan Singh Page no. 8/19 Digitally signed by HIMANSHI HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2025.07.31 16:40:10 +0530
(a) in the taking or preventing the escape of any other person whom such Magistrate or police Officer is authorized to arrest ; or
(b) in the prevention of suppression of a breach of the peace; or
(c) in the prevention of any injury attempted to be commit ted to any railway, canal, telegraph or public property."
19.3 Section 42 Cr.P.C. Provides for arrest on refusal to give name and residences and states as follows:
" (1) When any person who, in the presence of the police officer, has committed or has been accused of committing a non-cognizable offene refuses, on demand of such officer, to give his name and residence or gives a name or resi-
dence which such officer has reason to believe to be false, he may be arrested by such officer in order that his name of residence may be as- certained.
(2) When the true name and residence of such persons have been ascertained, he shall be re- leased on his executing a bond, with or without sureties, to appear before a Magistrate, if so re- quired;
Digitally
State Vs. Jagmohan Singh signed by Page no. 9/19
HIMANSHI
HIMANSHI TYAGI
TYAGI Date:
2025.07.31
16:40:17
+0530
Provided that, if such person is not resident in India, the bond shall be secured by a surety of sureties resident in India.
(3) Should the true name and residence of such person not be ascertained within twenty- four hours from the time of arrest or should he fail to execute the bond, or, if so required, to furnish sufficient sureties, he shall forthwith be forwarded to the nearest Magistrate having jurisdiction."
19.4 Section 187 IPC states that, " whoever, being bound by law to render or furnish assistance to any public servant in the execution of his public duty, intentionally omits to give such assistance, shall 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 assistance be demanded of him by a public servant legally competent to make such demand for the purpose of executing any process lawfully issued by a Court of Justice, or of preventing the commission of an offene, State Vs. Jagmohan Singh Page no. 10/19 Digitally signed by HIMANSHI HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2025.07.31 16:40:25 +0530 or of suppressing a riot, or affray, or of appre- hending a person charged with or guilty of an offence, or of having escaped from lawful cus- tody, shall be punished with simple imprison- ment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
20. The foremost question that arises for consideration in the present case is whether the possession of alleged fireworks by the accused is actually prohibited under The Explosives Act, 1884. Section 9B of the said Act prohibits possession of explosives in contravention of the rules made under section 5 of the Act or in contravention of the conditions under which the license was granted. The relevant provisions are enunciated below-
21. Punishment for certain offences.--(1) Whoever, in contravention of rules made under section 5 or of the conditions of a licence granted under the said rules-
(a) manufactures, imports or exports any explosive shall he punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both;
(b) possesses, uses, sells or transports any explosive shall be State Vs. Jagmohan Singh Page no. 11/19 Digitally signed by HIMANSHI HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2025.07.31 16:40:30 +0530 punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to three thousand rupees or with both; and
(c) in any other case, with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees.
22. Section 5: Power to make rules as to licensing of the manufacture, possession, use, sale, transport and import and Export of explosives.
(1) The Central Government may, for any part of India, make rules consistent with this Act to regulate or prohibit, except under and in accordance with the conditions of a licence granted as provided by those rules, the manufacture, possession, use, sale, transport, import and export of explosives, or any specified class of explosives.
23. It is an undisputed fact in the present case that accused has a valid license for the sale of firecrackers and explosive substances. As per the license of the accused, at a given point of time, accused could have possessed total 2000 kilograms of fireworks which included 1500 kilograms for sale and 500 kilograms on temporary basis. In this scenario, mere recovery of some firecrackers from the accused would not make the accused liable for the offences u/s 286 IPC and Section 9B Explosives Act. Since accused was a licensed seller of firecrackers, accused would of-course possess the fireworks. The only crux of the State Vs. Jagmohan Singh Page no. 12/19 Digitally signed by HIMANSHI HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2025.07.31 16:40:38 +0530 prosecution version is that the accused had the possession of firecrackers beyond the permissible limits. Thus, the prosecution had to prove that the recovery was beyond the permitted quantity and this act constituted an offence u/s 9B of the Explosives Act. For conviction u/s 286 IPC, the prosecution was also bound to prove that the accused faile d to take proper precautions against probable harm in handling of the explosive substances and endangered human life.
24. As per the case of the prosecution, accused was apprehended at his shop i.e; at shop no 9K 6299, Kolhapur Road, Kamla Nagar at about 03:20 pm in afternoon. Perusal of the site plan Ex PW2/D shows that there were many shops located adjacent to the shop of the accused. It is a common market area and as such is a crowded area. The avail- ability of independent witnesses is not denied by the police witnesses. PW1, PW2 and PW4 admitted in their cross examination that public persons were present at the spot. When a statutory provision mandates that independent witness has to be joined in the investigation, the IO is duty bound to comply the same. At least he should make sincere efforts in this regard. If someone refuses to join the investigation without any justifiable reason, proper notice u/s 187 IPC should be given to him. Merely stating that the public person refused to join the investigation is not sufficient to serve the purpose of the prosecuting agency, more so, when the IO failed to even record the names and details of such person, including the permanent dwellers of the area who has shops adjacent to the shop of the accused, and failed to take any required steps in terms of Section 37 and 42 of Cr.P.C.
State Vs. Jagmohan Singh Page no. 13/19 Digitally signed by HIMANSHI HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2025.07.31 16:40:34 +0530
25. Reliance at this stage is placed upon the case of Anoop Joshi Vs. State 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), wherein Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed that" It is repeatedly laid down by this Court that in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses". Similarly the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hemraj vs State of Haryana (AIR 2005 SC 2110) ob- served that "the fact that no independent witness though available, was examined and not even an explanation was sought to be given for not examining such witness is a serious infirmity in the prosecution case.." Furthermore, in case titled Roop Chand V/s State of Haryana, 1999 (1)C.L.R 69, the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana held as fol- lowing:
"It is well settled principle of the law that the Investigating Agency should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband articles, if they are available and their failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. In the present case also admittedly the independent witnesses were available at the time of recovery but they refused to associate themselves in the investigation. This explanation does not inspire confidence because the police officials who are the only witnesses examined in the case have not given the names State Vs. Jagmohan Singh Page no. 14/19 Digitally signed by HIMANSHI HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2025.07.31 16:40:43 +0530 and addresses of the persons contacted to join. It is a very common excuse that the witnesses from the public refused to join the investigation. A police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public the Investigating Officer can take action against such a person under the law. Had it been a fact that he witnesses from the public had refused to to join the investigation, the Investigating Officer must have proceeded against them under the relevant provisions of law. The failure to do so by the police officer is suggestive of the fact that the explanation for non-joining the witnesses from the public is an after thought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful"
26. The law laid down as above makes it incumbent upon the investigation agency to take sincere efforts to join the public indepen- dent witness in case of search and seizure proceedings for it to become reliable. In the case at hand, it has come in evidence that no public per- son was joined in investigation despite their availability. No efforts were admittedly made by the IO in this regard. A stereotype statement of non-availability or non-agreement on behalf of witness, will not be sufficient to inspire faith of the Court in the prosecution story.The con- State Vs. Jagmohan Singh Page no. 15/19 Digitally signed by HIMANSHI HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2025.07.31 16:40:48 +0530 duct of the police officials was not justified in non joining of any mem- ber of the public, as the public persons present at or around the place of incident could have been easily joined in the proceedings. The IO had ample time to make those independent persons understand the nature of proceedings and their role as a witness. It was incumbent upon the pros- ecution to at least put forward the reasons for not doing so. Failure on the part of the police officials to make sincere effort to join public wit- nesses for the proceedings when they may be available creates reason- able doubt in the prosecution story and false implication of the accused by the police in the present case cannot be ruled out.
27. Further, PW1 did not prepare seal handing over memo after sealing the alleged case property. He did not place on record any CCTV footage of the place where accused was apprehended and case property was recovered The photographs A to Q placed on record indeed show some fireworks and the shop of the accused but the same cannot be relied upon solely to prove the seizure of case property. As already noted, it is undisputed that accused was a licensed seller of firecrackers and photographs of his shop and firecrackers would not ipso facto prove that the seized contraband was the one which was beyond permissible limits. The core fact to be proved by the prosecution here that the seized firecrackers were beyond the permitted quantity. The prosecution should have proved the overall quantity of firecrackers available in the shop of accused and then consequently that there were firecrackers beyond permitted quantity.
State Vs. Jagmohan Singh Page no. 16/19 Digitally signed by HIMANSHI HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2025.07.31 16:40:54 +0530
28. Qua the above fact in issue, an interesting position has emerged in the evidence on the prosecution. PW2 deposed that firecrackers weighing 2000 kilograms were retuned and receipt was issued to the accused. On this aspect when PW2 was cross examined by defence counsel, PW2 deposed that the said quantity of 2000 kilograms was weighed on a weighing scale borrowed from the nearby shop. He further deposed that the said weighing scale could weigh goods/items upto 5000 kilograms. The defence counsel then put the question that if the said scale could weigh items upto 5000 kilograms, why the excess quantity of firecrackers i.e; 7470 kilograms were not weighed on it in two turns. To which PW 2 replied that the seized firecrackers were huge and thus were taken to a Dharam Kanta to weigh the same. The said part of the testimony of PW2 shows that there was infact a possibility that seized firecrackers could have been weighed at the spot itself. The answer given by PW2 was not satisfactory. Also, in cross examination, PW2 deposed about borrowing of a weighing scale by Ct Adesh Kumar but the same was not corroborated by any other witness. The said shopkeeper was not cited as a witness. It is evident that PW2 did not weigh the case property at the spot and the same raises doubt about the story of the prosecution.
29. The lapses in the prosecution case further assume significance on account of another grave procedural irregularity apparent in seizure memo Ex. PW2/C. From the perusal of the seizure memo, it is apparent that the same is having complete FIR number written on the same. It is also to be noted that the FIR number written on State Vs. Jagmohan Singh HIMANSHI Page no. 17/19 TYAGI Digitally signed by HIMANSHI TYAGI Date: 2025.07.31 16:40:59 +0530 the top of seizure memo and the entire seizure memo is in the same handwriting. There is nothing on record to suggest that someone had written the FIR number on the top of seizure memo after registration of FIR. The mention of FIR number on a document purportedly prepared prior to registration of FIR, shows that the proceedings may not have been conducted in the manner and at the time as claimed by the police and possibility of false implication of accused cannot be ruled out.
30. Another lacuna in the prosecution case relates to seal. PW- 2 deposed that explosives were sealed with the seal of NS. Neither the IO nor the PW-2 prepared any seal handing over memo.The seal was neither handed over to an independent witness nor deposited in malkhana on time and no proper explanation has come on record as to why seal was not handed over to an independent witness or deposited in malkhana. In these circumstances, the possibility of tampering of case property cannot be ruled out.
31. From the above stated facts the recovery of the seized ex- plosives from the possession of accused becomes doubtful. These are material missing links in version of prosecution and tampering of case property in these circumstances cannot be ruled out.
32. As regards Section 286 IPC for which the accused has been charged with, bare perusal of the said provision shows that to bring home the guilt of offence punishable under 286 IPC, it is essential to prove rashness or negligence on the part of the accused while handling State Vs. Jagmohan Singh Page no. 18/19 Digitally signed by HIMANSHI HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2025.07.31 16:41:03 +0530 the alleged explosives. However, in the present case from the perusal of the entire evidence led on record, it is apparent that prosecution has not led any evidence to prove rashness or negligence on the part of the ac- cused. None of the police witnesses even deposed to the effect that the accused handled the alleged explosives/firecrackers in rash or negligent manner. In absence of such evidence the accused cannot be held guilty of offence punishable under Section 286 IPC.
33. The cardinal principal of law cannot be forgotten that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. The standard of proof is not preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond all reasonable doubts. It is well settled legal preposition that the benefit of doubt goes in favour of accused.
34. In view of foregoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Jagmohan Singh is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 286 IPC & 9(B) Explosives Act.
The Judgment contains 19 pages and each page has been signed by the undersigned. Digitally signed by HIMANSHI HIMANSHI TYAGI Date:
TYAGI 2025.07.31
Pronounced in open Court on 31.07.2025 16:41:11
+0530
(Himanshi Tyagi)
Metropolitan Magistrate-03
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
State Vs. Jagmohan Singh Page no. 19/19