Delhi District Court
State vs Sonu@Irfan on 7 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. JYOTI NAIN
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-07: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI.
DLNT020048232022
State Vs. Sonu @ Irfan
FIR No. 296/2022
PS: Jahangir Puri
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act
Date of Institution of case :- 09.03.2022
Date of Judgment reserved : - 05.08.2025
Date on which Judgment pronounced : - 07.08.2025
JUDGMENT
Case Number : 2962/2022
Date of Commission : 23.02.2022
of offence
Name of complainant : Ct. Akshay, No. 2172/NW, PIS No. 28181885
Name and address of : Sonu @ Irfan S/o Sheikh Mohamad @ Sheikh Gaffar
accused R/o C-169, Gali no. 2, Jahangir Puri @ B353 Gali no.
4, Jahangir Puri, Delhi.
Offence complained of : 25/54/59 Arms Act
Plea of accused : Not Guilty
Final Order : Acquitted
Digitally signed
JYOTI by JYOTI NAIN
Date:
2025.08.07
Cr. Case No. 2962/2022 FIR No. 296/22 State Vs. Sonu @ Irfan PS Jahangir Puri 1 of 11 NAIN 17:00:14
+0530
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION : -
1. Vide this Judgment, this Court shall dispose of the present case u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act.
2. The story of the prosecution is that on 23.02.2022 at about 10.20 PM at K block, near Mother Dairy, Jahangir Puri, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Jahangir Puri, accused Sonu @ Irfan was found in possession of one buttondar knife (as per seizure memo mark A) in contravention to Notification issued by the Delhi Administration without any permit or licence and thereby, committed an offence under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act. The knife was seized and taken into possession by the police. After completing the formalities, investigation was carried out.
3. Charge sheet was filed against the accused under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act in the court. Charge under section 25/54/59 Arms Act was framed against the accused vide order dated 29.03.2022 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined 03 witnesses namely (i) Ct. Vikas (ii) Ct. Akshay and (iii) HC Dinesh :-
5. PW-1 is Ct. Vikas No. 1457/NW, PIS No. 28184179.
He deposed that on 23.02.2022, he was posted at PS Jahangir Puri as Constable. On that day, he alongwith Ct. Akshay were doing patrolling duty in the area of K Block, Jahangir Puri, Delhi. At about 10:20 PM, they reached near Mother Dairy, K Block, Jahangir Puri, Delhi where they saw accused Sonu @ Irfan was standing in suspicious condition and on seeing them in uniform, he tried to move from the spot with faster step. They apprehended accused Sonu @ Irfan at a distance of 15-20 steps. Ct. Akshay conducted the personal search of the accused Sonu @ Irfan and he was found in possession of one buttondar knife in the right dub of his pocket of wearing pant. On inquiry, the accused had revealed his name Sonu @ Irfan. Ct. Akshay gave the information regarding the recovery of buttondar knife to the JYOTI Digitally signed by JYOTI NAIN NAIN Date: 2025.08.07 17:00:18 +0530 Cr. Case No. 2962/2022 FIR No. 296/22 State Vs. Sonu @ Irfan PS Jahangir Puri 2 of 11 Duty Officer of PS Jahangir Puri. After some time, IO HC Dinesh reached at the spot and they handed over the custody of accused Sonu @ Irfan and recovered knife to IO HC Dinesh. IO requested 4 to 5 public persons to join the investigation but none of them agreed and left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses. IO recorded statement of Ct. Akshay. IO prepared sketch of the knife which is Ex. PW 1/A bearing his signatures at point A. On measuring, total length of the knife is 23 cm, length of fal is 11 cm, length of dasta is 12 cm and width of fal is 2.5 cm. There was a button on the knife, with the help of which, the knife could be opened and closed. IO seized the knife vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW 1/B bearing his signatures at Point A. IO prepared pullinda of the knife and sealed with the seal of DK. After use, IO handed over the seal to him. IO prepared rukka and handed over the same to him for registration of the FIR. Accordingly, he went to the PS and got registered the present FIR. After registration of FIR, he came back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to IO. IO prepared site plan of the spot. IO recorded disclosure statement of the accused vide disclosure statement which is Ex. PW 1/C bearing his signatures at point A. IO arrested and personally searched the accused vide memos Ex. PW 1/D and Ex. PW 1/E both bearing his signatures at point A. IO recorded his statement.
This witness is duly cross-examined by Ld. LAC for the accused.
6. PW-2 is Ct. Akshay No.2172/NW, PIS No. 28181885.
He deposed that on 23.02.2022, he was posted at PS Jahangir Puri as Constable. On that day, he alongwith Ct. Vikas were doing patrolling duty in the area of K Block, Jahangir Puri, Delhi. At about 10:20 PM, they reached near Mother Dairy, K Block, Jahangir Puri, Delhi where they saw accused Sonu @ Irfan, who was standing in suspicious condition and on seeing us in uniform, he tried to move from the spot with faster step. They apprehended the accused Sonu @ Irfan at a distance of 15-20 steps. He conducted personal search of accused Sonu @ Irfan and he was found in possession of one buttondar knife in the right dub of his pocket of wearing Digitally signed JYOTI by JYOTI NAIN Date: Cr. Case No. 2962/2022 FIR No. 296/22 State Vs. Sonu @ Irfan PS Jahangir Puri 3 of 11 NAIN 2025.08.07 17:00:41 +0530 pant. On inquiry, the accused had revealed his name Sonu @ Irfan. He gave the information regarding the recovery of buttondar knife to the duty officer of PS Jahangir Puri. After some time, IO HC Dinesh reached at the spot and they handed over custody of accused Sonu @ Irfan and recovered knife to IO HC Dinesh. IO requested 4 to 5 public persons to join the investigation but none of them agreed and left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses. IO recorded statement his statement which is Ex.PW2/A bearing his signature at point A. IO prepared sketch of the knife which is Ex. PW 1/A bearing his signatures at point B. On measuring, total length of the knife is 23 cm, length of fal is 11 cm, length of dasta is 12 cm and width of fal is 2.5 cm. There was a button on the knife, with the help of which, the knife could be opened and closed. IO seized the knife vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW 1/B bearing his signatures at point B. IO prepared pullinda of the knife and sealed with the seal of DK. After use, IO handed over the seal to Ct. Vikas. IO prepared rukka and handed over the same to Ct. Vikas for registration of the FIR. Accordingly, he went to the PS and got registered the present FIR. After registration of FIR, he came back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to IO. IO prepared site plan of the spot at his instance which is Ex.PW2/B bearing his signature at point A. IO recorded disclosure statement of the accused vide disclosure statement which is Ex. PW 1/C bearing his signatures at Point B. IO arrested and personally searched the accused vide memos Ex. PW1/D and Ex. PW1/E both bearing his signatures at Point B. IO recorded his supplementary statement.
This witness is duly cross-examined by Ld. LAC for accused.
7. PW-3 is HC Dinesh No. 2819/OD, PS Mundka.
He deposed that on 23.02.2022, he was posted at PS Jahangir Puri as HC. On that day, on receiving DD no. 141-A, he went to area of K Block, Jahangir Puri, Delhi, where he met Ct. Vikas and Ct. Akshay, who handed over accused apprehended alongwith case property to him. He requested 4 to 5 public persons to join the investigation but none of them agreed and left the spot without disclosing Digitally signed JYOTI by JYOTI NAIN Date: NAIN 2025.08.07 17:00:51 +0530 Cr. Case No. 2962/2022 FIR No. 296/22 State Vs. Sonu @ Irfan PS Jahangir Puri 4 of 11 their names and addresses. IO recorded statement of Ct. Akshay Ex.PW2/A bearing his signature at point B. He prepared sketch of the knife which is Ex.PW1/A bearing his signatures at point C. On measuring, total length of the knife is 23 cm, length of fal is 11 cm, length of dasta is 12 cm and width of fal is 2.5 cm. There was a button on the knife, with the help of which, the knife could be opened and closed. He seized the knife vide seizure memo which is Ex.PW1/B bearing his signatures at point C. He prepared pullinda of the knife and sealed with the seal of DK. After use, he handed over the seal to Ct. Vikas. He prepared rukka which is Ex.PW3/A bearing his signature at point A and handed over the same to Ct. Vikas for registration of the FIR. Accordingly, he went to the PS and got registered the present FIR. After registration of FIR, he came back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to him. He prepared site plan of the spot which is Ex.PW2/B bearing his signature at point B. He recorded disclosure statement of the accused vide disclosure statement which is Ex.PW1/C bearing his signatures at point C. He arrested and personally searched the accused vide memos Ex.PW1/D and Ex.PW1/E both bearing his signatures at point C. He recorded statement of witnesses.
This witness is duly cross-examined by Ld. LADC for the accused.
8. Statement of accused Sonu @ Irfan was also recorded u/s 294 Cr.P.C in which, accused has admitted the factum of following documents i.e. Registration of FIR No. 296/2022 which is Ex. A1, Certificate U/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex. A2, DD No.118A dated 23.02.2022 which is Ex. A3, DD No. 141A dated 23.02.2022 which is Ex. A4, Notification No. F.13/203/78 Home dated 17.02.1979 which is Ex. A5 and contents of Register No. 19 and 21 regarding deposition of the case property.
9. Thereafter, PE was closed and statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C r/w 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein, the accused pleaded innocence but did not lead any evidence in his defence.
Digitally signed JYOTI by JYOTI NAIN Date: NAIN 2025.08.07 17:00:56 +0530
Cr. Case No. 2962/2022 FIR No. 296/22 State Vs. Sonu @ Irfan PS Jahangir Puri 5 of 11
10. It is argued by Ld. APP for the State that from ocular and documentary evidence or record, Prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt that accused was found in possession of knife and submitted that accused should be convicted of the offence charged.
11. Per contra, it is argued by Ld. counsel for accused that neither any person was made witness nor any handing over memo of seal was prepared. Further, no notice was served to the public persons, hence, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused is liable to be acquitted.
12. I have heard the arguments addressed by Ld. APP for the State and Ld. counsel for the accused and perused the documents on record carefully.
13. Points for determination:-
(i) Whether on 23.02.2022 at about 10.20 PM at K block, near Mother Dairy, Jahangir Puri, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Jahangir Puri, accused Sonu @ Irfan was found in possession of one buttondar knife without any license or permit, in contravention to the notification issued by the Delhi Administration".
14. From the over all testimony of the witnesses, it is clear that the IO has not joined any public witness in the investigation. In fact, not even an effort was made to join the public witnesses. There is a possibility that it was a chance recovery, however, at the time and place from where the accused was apprehended and when the formalities were being completed, there must be public persons around as it is a public place, which is expected to be crowded with people.
Also, no reason as to why no public witness could be found has been put forth by the prosecution. All the witnesses examined are police witnesses. This casts a doubt about the sincere efforts made by the IO to join independent witnesses.
Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI Date:
NAIN NAIN 2025.08.07 17:01:01 Cr. Case No. 2962/2022 FIR No. 296/22 State Vs. Sonu @ Irfan PS Jahangir Puri 6 of 11 +0530
15. Regarding the importance of joining independent witness during investigation in a case like the present one, reliance may be placed on " Anoop Joshi Vs. State 1999(2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), wherein, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under:
"18. 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. In the present case, it is evident that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shopkeepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC".
16. Similarly, in Nanak Chand Vs. State of Delhi reported as DHC 1992 CRI LJ 55, it is observed as under:-
"that the recovery is proved by three police officials who have differed on who snatched the Kirpan from the petitioner and at what time. The recovery was from a street with houses on both sides and shops nearby. And, yet no witness from the public has been produced. Not that in every case the police officials are to be treated as unworthy of reliance but their failure to join witnesses from the public especially when they are available at their elbow, may, as in the present case, cast doubt. They have again churned out a stereotyped Digitally signed by Cr. Case No. 2962/2022 FIR No. 296/22 State Vs. Sonu @ Irfan PS Jahangir Puri 7 of 11 JYOTI JYOTI Date:
NAIN NAIN 2025.08.07 17:01:06 +0530 version. Its rejection needs no Napoleon on the Bridge at Arcola".
17. Also, in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh , AIR 1994 SC 1872, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as under :-
"It therefore emerges that non-compliance of these provisions i.e. Sections 100 and 165 Cr.P.C. would amount to an irregularity and the effect of the same on the main case depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Of course, in such a situation, the court has to consider whether any prejudice has been caused to the accused and also examine the evidence in respect of search in the light of the fact that these provisions have not been complied with and further consider whether the weight of evidence is in any manner affected because of the non- compliance. It is well-settled that the testimony of a witness is not to be doubted or discarded merely on the ground that he happens to be an official but as a rule of caution and depending upon the circumstances of the case, the courts look for independent corroboration. This again depends on question whether the official has deliberately failed to comply with these provisions or failure was due to lack of time and opportunity to associate some independent witnesses with the search and strictly comply with these provisions." [Emphasis supplied]
18. Considering the aforesaid observations made by the Higher Courts, the omissions / failure on the part of investigating agency to join independent public witnesses create reasonable doubt in the prosecution story.
Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI Date:
NAIN NAIN 2025.08.07 17:01:10 Cr. Case No. 2962/2022 FIR No. 296/22 State Vs. Sonu @ Irfan PS Jahangir Puri 8 of 11 +0530
19. None of the recovery witnesses in their examination-in-chief have stated that they offered their personal search to accused before inspecting the knife carried by the accused persons. Principles of natural justice demanded that accused should have been offered search by recovery witness who allegedly recovered case property from accused and should have reduced this fact into writing which has not been done in present case and which fact diminishes credibility of prosecution version. Reliance being placed on a judgment of Hon'ble Orissa High Court reported as "Rabindernath Prusty Vs. State of Orissa" . In this situation, it can be said that search of the accused by above said police officials was in complete violation of the above said case law and the same can be said to be illegal & motivated.
20. From the aforesaid discussion, it is very clear that the manner in which the inquiry, seizure and search etc. has been conducted on the spot at the time of alleged recovery of weapon, it makes the prosecution version highly doubtful. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. 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.
21. The Section 100(4) Cr.P.C. provided that " before making a search of the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon the two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated or any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness of the search, to attend the witness the search and may issued an order in writing to them or any of them so to do".
Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI Date:
NAIN NAIN 2025.08.07 17:01:14 Cr. Case No. 2962/2022 FIR No. 296/22 State Vs. Sonu @ Irfan PS Jahangir Puri 9 of 11 +0530
22. In the present case, the IO has even failed to note down the particulars of the person who refused to join the investigation and this creates doubt regarding the fairness of the investigation. The chances of false implication cannot be ruled out.
23. PW 3 categorically stated in his cross-examinations that, " he did not prepare handing over memo of the seal." PW 1 and PW 2 also corroborated the same lines in their cross examinations that "IO did not prepare handing over memo of seal".
24. In these circumstances, the possibility of tampering of case property cannot be ruled out. Reliance is placed on " Ramji Singh V/s State of Haryana " 2007 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 452, the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court held that:-
7. "The very purpose of giving seal to an independent person is to avoid tampering of the case property. It is well settled that till the case property is not dispatched to the forensic science laboratory, the seal should not be available to the prosecuting agency and in the absence of such a safeguard the possibility of seal, contraband and the samples being tampered with cannot be ruled out".
25. Similarly, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in "Safiullah v. State", 1993 (1) RCR (Criminal) 622, held that -
"10. The seals after use were kept by the police officials themselves. Therefore the possibility of tampering with the contents of the sealed parcel cannot be ruled out. It was very essential for the prosecution to have established from stage to stage the fact that the sample was not tampered with. Once a doubt is created in the preservation of the sample the benefit of the same should go to the accused."
Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI NAIN NAIN Date:
2025.08.07 17:01:18 Cr. Case No. 2962/2022 FIR No. 296/22 State Vs. Sonu @ Irfan PS Jahangir Puri 10 of 11 +0530
26. All the lapses in investigation create doubt on the very recovery of a buttondar knife from the possession of the accused. The Court is of the considered view that prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt.
27. In view of the above discussion, the Court is of the view that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and in the absence of any cogent evidence against accused Sonu @ Irfan is hereby acquitted for offence under section 25/54/59 Arms Act. Case property be confiscated to the State as per rules and the same be destroyed.
28. File be consigned to Record Room.
29. This Judgment consists of 11 pages and all pages bear my signature.
JYOTI Digitally signed by
JYOTI NAIN
Announced and dictated directly NAIN Date: 2025.08.07
17:01:23 +0530
into the computer in open court (JYOTI NAIN)
on 7th Day of August, 2025. JMFC-07/North District Rohini Courts, Delhi Cr. Case No. 2962/2022 FIR No. 296/22 State Vs. Sonu @ Irfan PS Jahangir Puri 11 of 11