Delhi District Court
State vs Satish Kumar on 8 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF Sh. SANYAM JAIN:
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-04: NORTH-WEST
ROHINI DISTRICT COURTS: NEW DELHI
FIR No. 520/2017
PS Keshav Puram
State Vs. Satish Kumar & ors.
Date of Institution: 03.09.2020
Date of Judgment: 08.12.2025
JUDGMENT
(a) Serial Number of the case : 2434/2020
(b) Name of the complainant : Sh. Tilak Raj Garg
(c) Name of Accused, his : (1) Satish Kumar
parentage & residence S/o Sawarn Lal,
R/o: Gali No. 372,
Ajit Vihar, Kamalpur, Delhi.
(2) Ratan Kamat
S/o Kishori Kamat,
R/o: H.No. 591/1,
School Road, Ram Pura, Delhi.
(3) Dinesh S/o Rajdev
R/o: Khasra No. 62/11/2,
Triveni Colony, Pawan Dham,
Bakhtawarpur, Delhi.
(e) Offence complained of : U/s: 381/411/34
(f) Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) Final order : Acquittal
FIR No. 520/2017 (PS Keshav Puram)
State Vs. Satish Kumar & ors. Page No. 1 of 11
SANYAM Digitally signed by
SANYAM JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.12.08
16:50:14 +0530
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. The allegations against the Accused (1) Satish Kumar S/o Sohan Ram (Accused no. 1), (2) Dinesh S/o Raj Dev (Accused No.2), and (3) Ratan Kamat S/o Kishore Kamat (Accused no. 3) are that on 19.09.2017, at unknown time, at H.no. 591/1, School Road, Rampura, Keshav Puram, Delhi, accused no. 3 being the servant of complainant Tilak Raj committed theft of 10 Bags marked name of "Novex", which were stolen from the factory of the complainant. Further, the accused no. 2 is alleged to have got recovered 25 bags marked name of "Novax" at Khasra No. 62/11/2, Triveni Colony, Pawan Dham, Bakhtawar Pur, Delhi, which was stolen on 19.09.2017 from Novex Industry, Bawana, Delhi, and accused no. 2 had received or retained knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property. Furthermore, the accused no. 1 is alleged to have got recovered 10 bags marked name of "Novax" at 372, Ajeet Vihar, Kamalpur, Burari, Delhi, which was stolen on 19.09.2017 from Novex Industry, Bawana, Delhi, and accused no. 1 had received or retained knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property. Thereby all the three accused persons were alleged to have committed offences u/s 381/411/34 IPC.
2. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court, both the accused were summoned by the Court and the accused persons were admitted to bail after they entered appearance. Copy of the charge-sheet along with the documents was also supplied to the accused in compliance of provisions of Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. After consideration of submissions, Charge was framed against the FIR No. 520/2017 (PS Keshav Puram) State Vs. Satish Kumar & ors. Page No. 2 of 11 SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.12.08 16:50:20 +0530 Accused no. 3 for the commission of offence u/s 381/411/34, Accused no. 1 and 2 for the commission of offence under section 411/34 IPC upon which all three accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. To prove their case, the prosecution commenced its evidence and examined three witnesses - 1. Sh. Tilak Raj Garg (complainant) 2. HC Sundar Singh (accompanied IO) and 3. HC Deepak (IO).
5. PW 1 Sh. Tilak Raj Garg deposed that he had the business of manufacturing and trading of suitcases in the name of Novex Industries, at Tri Nagar House no. 1724/125, Shanti Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi. On 19.09.2017, he gave complaint which is Ex.PW1/A in the PS that his suitcases were being stolen on a routine manner, but he was not knowing who was the thief. He suspected accused no. 3 of the same. He stated that many suitcases were stolen from his godown. Upon his complaint, police official came at his office/godown located at Tri Nagar, Delhi and he told them that he had suspicion on accused no. 3. Thereafter, police official inquired from accused no. 3 upon which, accused no. 3 told that he had stolen suitcase and also stated some suitcases were in his possession and some were sold. Thereafter, he along with police officials and accused no. 3 went to the house of accused no. 3 located at Rampura, from where, ten suitcases were recovered and police official again inquired from accused no. 3 about rest of the suitcases upon which accused no. 3 revealed that he had sold the remaining suitcases to 'Kabadi' namely Satish Kumar i.e. Accused no. 1. Thereafter, he along with police official and accused no. 3 went to the godown of accused no. 1 located near Bakhtawar Pur where accused no. 3 pointed out towards accused no. 1 by saying that he is the FIR No. 520/2017 (PS Keshav Puram) State Vs. Satish Kumar & ors. Page No. 3 of 11 SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.12.08 16:50:25 +0530 same person/kabadi to whom, accused no. 3 sold the suitcases. Thereafter, upon search, ten suitcases of make Novex were found from the godown of accused No. 1. Upon inquiry, accused no. 1 informed to the police official that rest of the suitcases had been sold to the owner of shop under the name and style of DK. Thereafter, he along with police official, accused no. 3 and accused no. 1 went to DK Shop located at Bakhtawar Pur from where, 25 suit cases make Novex were found from that shop. Thereafter, the police official seized the recovered suitcases vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D. Thereafter, accused persons and case property were brought to the PS. Accused persons and case property were present in the court on that day and were correctly identified by the witnesses. Case property were Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4. On cross examination by Ld. APP, the witnesses deposed that owner of shop DK is Dinesh. Accused persons were arrested vide memos Ex.PW1/E, Ex.PW1/F and Ex.PW1/G. Disclosure statements of accused persons were recorded by police official which were Ex.PW1/H, Ex.PW1/I and Ex.PW1/J.
6. The witness was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel of the accused persons in which witness stated that he has not provided any proof to the police with respect to the employment of Accused no. 3. There were no serial number being put on the suitcases being manufactured at the complainant's company. Witness could not tell how many suitcases were sold by him in year 2017. He further stated that he does not keep the stock register of his company. He was not aware about the colour of suitcases manufactured in his company at the relevant period and he could not tell the colour of the recovered bags. Then suggestions were put to the witness wherein witness was asked about the existence of a financial dispute between witness and Accused FIR No. 520/2017 (PS Keshav Puram) State Vs. Satish Kumar & ors. Page No. 4 of 11 SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.12.08 16:50:30 +0530 no. 1 and 2. Further, that despite there being public persons present at the spot, none of them were made witness. Witness refused that his other employees did not become witness as they were aware that his case is false. He further denied the suggestion that witness did not get the bags released on supardari because he did not lose any bags. Witness has failed to answer if the seizure documents were prepared in the PS or on the spot. He has stated that his statement was recorded in the PS. He was contradicted with respect to the recording of his statements by the police. Witness deposed that accused no. 3 was arrested in the morning and other after lunch, upon which witness was duly confronted with the arrest memos. The arrest memos show time of arrest to be in the night.
7. PW 2 HC Sundar Singh and PW 3 HC Deepak deposed that on 19.09.2017, they were posted at PS Keshav Puram. Complainant Tilak Raj came to PS and gave his statement Ex.PW1/A to PW3 regarding theft of 50 bags from his godown, and also informed that accused No. 3 had stolen the said bags. Thereafter, PW3 prepared tehrir Ex.PW3/A. On that day, they and complainant Tilak Raj went to godown of complainant Tilak Raj situated at 1724/125, Tri Nagar, Delhi where complainant Tilak Raj pointed out towards the accused no. 3 by stating that he had stolen bags from his factory. Thereafter, they inquired from the accused no. 3 and he admitted that he has stolen 50 bags from the factory. They further stated that accused no.3 stated that 40 bags were sold and remaining 10 bags were in the house of accused no. 3. Thereafter, they and complainant and accused no. 3 went to the house of accused no.3 situated at Ram Pura where accused no. 3 removed 10 bags from one Sandook, thereafter, PW 3 put the recovered 10 bags in the white plastic katta and sealed the same with the seal of DK vide FIR No. 520/2017 (PS Keshav Puram) State Vs. Satish Kumar & ors. Page No. 5 of 11 SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.12.08 16:50:34 +0530 seizure memo Ex.PW1/B and also stated that other bags, were sold to accused no. 1 (who resides in Burari). Thereafter, they, complainant and accused no. 3 went to the house of accused no. 1 and 10 bags make Novex were recovered from the house of accused no. 1. Thereafter, PW 3 put the recovered 10 bags in the white plastic katta and sealed the same with the seal of DK vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C and seal was handed over to PW2, and accused no. 1 informed the PW3 that he had sold 30 bags to accused no. 2 who resides at Bakhtawar Pur. Thereafter, they, complainant and both accused no. 1 and 3 went to the shop of accused no. 2 where accused no. 2 was inquired from. Thereafter, accused no. 2 gave 25 bags including trolley bag to the IO from his shop, and also stated that accused no. 2 were having knowledge that the said bags are the stolen property and he had sold 05 bags to other persons but he did not know their names and address. Thereafter, PW3 put the recovered 25 bags in the white plastic katta and sealed the same with the seal of DK vide seizure memo already Ex.PW1/D. Thereafter, accused persons were arrested vide memos already Ex.PW1/E, Ex.PW1/F and Ex.PW1/G. Accused persons were personally searched vide memos Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/C. PW3 also recorded the disclosure statement of accused persons which are already Ex.PW1/H, Ex.PW1/I and Ex.PW1/J. Accused persons and case property were present in the court on that day and were correctly identified by the witnesses. Case property are Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4. On cross examination by Ld. APP, the witnesses deposed that complainant identified the said recovered case property as the same as stolen from the complainant factory.
8. PW-2 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons in which he stated that the complainant did not make the FIR No. 520/2017 (PS Keshav Puram) State Vs. Satish Kumar & ors. Page No. 6 of 11 SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.12.08 16:50:38 +0530 statement in his presence. He further stated that the Accused no. 1 was arrested in the evening and they reached the location in the evening. Further, complainant did not give any proof of ownership of alleged stolen articles. The accused was confronted with the Site plan which was Ex.PW2/D and the witness wrongly stated that complainant had signed it.
9. PW3 was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons in which he stated that complainant did not tell any particular date and time when the bags were stolen. He also agreed that the complainant did not give any proof of ownership of the goods allegedly recovered. The complainant had come to the PS in the evening and the arrests were made thereafter. The complainant also did not produce any proof to show that Accused no. 3 was the employee of the complainant. Witness when asked about the same stated that the complainant informed him that complainant paid salary in cash. It was suggested to the witness that it was a false case registered under the pressure of the complainant and all the documents were prepared while sitting in the police station.
10. The statements of accused were then recorded under Section 281 read with Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein the entire incriminating evidence were put to the accused who maintained their innocence stating that "They have been falsely implicated in the present case." . Accused persons chose to not lead DE.
11. Final arguments as advanced by the Ld APP for the State and by Ld. counsel for the accused have been carefully considered along with the evidence on record.
FIR No. 520/2017 (PS Keshav Puram)
State Vs. Satish Kumar & ors. Page No. 7 of 11
SANYAM Digitally signed by
SANYAM JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.12.08 16:50:43
+0530
12. It is a settled proposition of law that in a criminal trial, it is for the State to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence and it is for the prosecution to ensure that its case is able to stand on its own legs. The prosecution cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weakness of the defence of the accused, if any. Accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution version.
13. Before delving into the facts of the case, it is essential to briefly discuss the ingredients of offences alleged.The essential ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 381 IPC are as follows:-
(a) Intention to take dishonestly
(b) The property shall be movable property.
(c) The property shall be taken out from the possession of any person, being master or servant, without his consent.
(d) There should be some moving of the said property to such taking.
(e) The theft should have been committed by a clerk or servant or a person being employed in the capacity of clerk or servant.
14. In this case, prosecution has failed to bring any documentary evidence or otherwise to proof that Accused no. 3 was ever employed with the complainant's company. The prosecution has utterly failed to proof the existence of employer-employee relationship between the complainant and accused no. 3. Secondly, the complainant has not been able to proof that the suitcases belonged to him or that they were in his possession. This raises a doubt, benefit of which should be extended to the accused persons. Reliance can be placed on Manjinder Singh Vs FIR No. 520/2017 (PS Keshav Puram) State Vs. Satish Kumar & ors. Page No. 8 of 11 SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.12.08 16:50:47 +0530 State of Punjab, (P&H) 2009(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 919 and Babu Vs The State of Punjab 1979 AIR 1475. Thirdly, it is highly improbable that 50 suitcases were taken out of the godown of the complainant but neither did the complainant became aware about the same nor any one else saw accused no. 3 do it. It is not as if accused no. 3 had unlimited access to the godown as he is alleged to be a mere labourer. It is quite unbelievable that a mere labourer moved out 50 suitcases and no one saw him doing it. In toto, the prosecution has failed to proof the ingredients of offences under S. 381. Even, S. 379 is not made out.
15. Coming to the Offence u/s 411 alleged against the Accused no. 1, 2 and 3, the relevant evidence on the record is the seizures made from the accused persons and the disclosures. In Trimbak Vs. State of M.P., AIR 1954 SC 39, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
"It is the duty of the prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of a person under Section 411 Indian Penal Code to prove, (1) that the stolen property was in the possession of the accused, (2) that some person other than the accused had possession of the property before the accused got possession of it, and (3) that the accused had knowledge that the property was stolen property."
16. Stolen property is defined u/s 410 as the property, the possession thereof has been transferred by theft or extortion or robbery or criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust.
17. The above definition of stolen property supposes that the property recovered must be taken away from somebody's possession by one of the above stated ways. The prosecution has failed to proof that the FIR No. 520/2017 (PS Keshav Puram) State Vs. Satish Kumar & ors. Page No. 9 of 11 SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.12.08 16:50:51 +0530 property allegedly recovered from the accused persons were stolen in the first place. Complainant has failed to show that the property belonged to him as the property did not bear any sign, serial no. Complainant further wasn't aware about the colour of the suitcases that were stolen. Furthermore, with respect to the Accused no. 1 and 2, the prosecution has not been able to show that the accused received the said property dishonestly.
18. Lastly, the alleged recovery is under cloud as well. There were no public persons involved in the alleged recovery when it is admitted that the public persons were present. It creates doubt on the prosecution story. In Jeet Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1998(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 274, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that:
"5. In the opinion of this Court, this revision should succeed on the short ground that there was a legal infirmity in the investigation. It is the case of the prosecution that HC Lekh Raj received the secret information when he was at a public place. The police party was going on patrol. In these circumstances it was mandatory on the part of the Head Constable to associate the independent witness when he could associate it without any difficulty or inconvenience. There is no cogent evidence why the independent witness has not been associated. In these circumstances, to base the conviction of the petitioner solely relying upon the statements of two police officials would be unfair..."
19. The complainant's testimony is in direct contradiction with the documentary evidence and the testimony of the police personnel. On the one hand, witness stated that the accused no. 3 was arrested in the morning when prosecution has stated that the same took place in the evening at 8:35 pm. It is not the case of small difference which could FIR No. 520/2017 (PS Keshav Puram) State Vs. Satish Kumar & ors. Page No. 10 of 11 SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.12.08 16:50:56 +0530 be attributed to the lapse in memory. This raises serious doubts over the alleged recoveries from the accused person.
Decision
20. Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, it is quite apparent that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. On the scale of preponderance of probabilities, the accused persons have raised enough doubts over the case as presented by the prosecution that they cannot be held guilty. Accordingly, accused persons namely (1) Satish Kumar S/o Sawarn Lal (2) Ratan Kamat S/o Kishori Kamat, and (3) Dinesh S/o Rajdev are acquitted for the offence u/s under Section offences u/s 381/411/34 IPC.
21. As per Section 437A of the CrPC, the accused persons as well as the surety shall remain bound by the personal and the surety bond respec- tively for a period of six months from today.
22. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the Open Court on 08.12.2025. Digitally signed SANYAM by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.12.08 16:51:04 +0530 (SANYAM JAIN) Judicial Magistrate First Class-04/ North West Rohini District Court/New Delhi Certified that this judgment contains 11 pages and each page bears my signature.
SANYAM Digitally signed by
SANYAM JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.12.08
16:51:09 +0530
(SANYAM JAIN)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-04/ North West Rohini District Court/New Delhi FIR No. 520/2017 (PS Keshav Puram) State Vs. Satish Kumar & ors. Page No. 11 of 11