Delhi District Court
State vs . Gopi Chand. on 24 November, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDRA SINGH
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : WEST
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
FIR No. 412018
ID 15982018
U/S. 188 IPC
PS Ranjeet Nagar
State Vs. Gopi Chand.
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. No of case 15982018
2. Date of commission of offence 23.01.2018
3. Name of complainant HC Pawan Kr. Singh
4. Name of accused Gopi Chand
s/o. Sh. Ramesh Kumar
r/o; H.No.2709, Gali No. 13, Ranjit
Nagar, Delhi.
5. Offence complained of U/s. 188 IPC
6. Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
7. Final order Convicted
8. Date of such order 24.11.2018
1. FACTS IN BRIEF/ CASE SET UP BY PROSECUTION: Accused has been sent for trial on the allegations that on 23.01.2018, at about 6.30 pm, at H.No. 3026, 1st Floor, Kabadi State Vs. Gopi Chand; FIR No. 41/18; PS RN 1/7 Market, Delhi, he was found to have kept a tenant without police verification in violation of the notification issued by the ACP concerned.
2. MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS: After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed by the police against accused. Cognizance of the offence was taken and the accused was summoned. Copy of the chargesheet was supplied to the accused and the matter was adjourned for arguments on charge.
3. NOTICE FRAMED AGAINST THE ACCUSED: Notice for offence punishable u/s. 188 IPC was given to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. EVIDENCE LED BY THE PROSECUTION: In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined two witnesses. The testimony of the said witness in brief is as under :
(a)PW1 is ASI Pawan Kr. Singh. PW1 is the IO. PW1 deposed that on 23.01.2018, he was posted at PS Ranjeet Nagar as HC. On that day, he alongwith Ct. Sharad Yadav were on patrolling in the area of PS Ranjeet Nagar and tenant verification duty and when they went at H.No. 3026, 1st Floor, Kabadi Market, Delhi, where I met Sh. Mehar Singh, who was residing in the said premises as tenant. He also met the landlord/the accused Sh. Gopi Chand. He further State Vs. Gopi Chand; FIR No. 41/18; PS RN 2/7 deposed that on being asked the landlord failed to produce the tenant verification form which is in violation of the order of ACP. He further deposed that he after mentioning the complete facts of the incident made a complaint on the basis of which the present FIR under Section 188 IPC was registered against the accused. The complaint is Ex. PW1/A, bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that he on the basis of the complaint the present case was registered through Ct. Sharad Yadav. He prepared the site plan, which is Ex. PW1/B, bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, he arrested the accused, vide memo Ex. PW1/C, bearing his signature at point A and he was also personally searched, vide memo Ex.PW1/D, bearing his signature at point A. He had also recorded the statement of Ct. Sharad Yadav, which is placed on record. He further deposed that on complaint under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. was made and the permission was obtained. After that accused was released on police bail being the bailable offences. Thereafter, he prepared the chrgesheet and filed before the court for trial.
(b)PW2 is Ct. Sharad Yadav. PW2 deposed that on 23.01.2018, he was posted at PS Ranjeet Nagar as Ct. On that day, he alongwith HC Pawan Kr. Singh were on patrolling in the area of PS Ranjeet Nagar and tenant verification duty and when they went at H.No. State Vs. Gopi Chand; FIR No. 41/18; PS RN 3/7 3026, 1st Floor, Kabadi Market, Delhi, where they met Sh. Mehar Singh, who was residing in the said premises as tenant. They also met the landlord/the accused Sh. Gopi Chand. He further deposed that on being asked the landlord failed to produce the tenant verification form which is in violation of the order of ACP. He further deposed that after mentioning the complete facts of the incident, IO made a complaint on the basis of which the present FIR under Section 188 IPC was registered against the accused. The complaint is Ex. PW1/A. On the basis of the complaint the present case was registered through him. He further deposed that after that IO prepared the site plan, which is already Ex. PW1/B, bearing his signature at point B. Thereafter, IO arrested the accused, vide memo already Ex. PW1/C, bearing his signature at point A and he was also personally searched, vide memo already Ex.PW1/D, bearing his signature at point B. His statement was recorded by the IO. After that accused was released on police bail being the bailable offences.
(c)STATEMENT OF ACCUSED: Statement of accused was recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. wherein the incriminating evidence was put to the accused. In the said statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C, accused has admitted the allegations however stated that he was not aware about the Notification.
State Vs. Gopi Chand; FIR No. 41/18; PS RN 4/7 Accused had not led any evidence in his defence.
5. ARGUMENTS OF LD. APP FOR STATE AND ACCUSED: Ld APP for the State had argued that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Ld APP for the State had also argued that the factum of violation of the order of ACP concerned by accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, accused is liable to be convicted in this case.
On the other hand, accused has stated that he was not aware about the notification and has stated that he had already got done the verification.
6. REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
(i) Before proceeding further, I need to discuss the relevant legal propositions applicable on to the facts of the case. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that the prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence & that in order to prove its case on judicial file, the prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs whereby it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused. Further settled it is, that the primary burden of proof for proving the offences in a criminal trial rests on the shoulders of the State Vs. Gopi Chand; FIR No. 41/18; PS RN 5/7 prosecution, which burden never shifts on to the accused.
(ii) It is no longer Res Integra that accused is entitled to benefit of every reasonable doubt(s) appearing qua the material facts of the prosecution's story whereby such reasonable doubt(s) entitles the accused to acquittal.
(iii) In the light of the above discussed legal position, I shall now step forward to divulge my opinion on the respective fate of the accused.
(iv) The testimonies of PW1 and PW2, who are material witnesses had deposed that on inquiry from the accused, accused failed to show/ produce the police verification form qua the tenant. Despite cross examination of the PW1 and PW2 nothing substantial in the favour of the accused came on record. The prosecution has successfully brought on record that the landlord had not complied with the order of MHA and violated the order of concerned ACP and had not submitted the tenant verification form in the police station. Accused has also admitted the registration of the present FIR. Thus, the testimony of PW1 and PW2 clearly prove that the accused has committed the offence u/s. 188 IPC.
7. CONCLUSION: For the reasons assigned hereinabove, I am of the view that the prosecution has successfully proved the offence u/s. 188 State Vs. Gopi Chand; FIR No. 41/18; PS RN 6/7 IPC against the accused. Accordingly, accused is convicted for the offence u/s 188 IPC. Digitally signed by JITENDRA JITENDRA SINGH SINGH Date:
2018.11.24 13:30:56 +0530 Judgment dictated and JITENDRA SINGH pronounced in the open Court ACMM:WEST DISTT:DELHI i.e. the 24th November of , 2018 (This judgment consists of 7 pages) State Vs. Gopi Chand; FIR No. 41/18; PS RN 7/7 IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDRA SINGH ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : WEST TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI FIR No. 412018 ID 15982018 U/S. 188 IPC PS Ranjeet Nagar State Vs. Gopi Chand.
ORDER ON POINT OF SENTENCE
Present: Ld APP for State.
Convict in person.
I have heard Ld APP for State as well as Convict on the point of sentence and have perused the record.
It is submitted by Convict that he is first time offender and only bread earner in his family. It is further submitted by the convict that he is not a previous convict. Convict has prayed for a lenient view.
On the other hand Ld APP for State submitted that the convict be sentenced to maximum punishment as prescribed for the offence in question.
In the present case convict has been convicted for offence punishable u/s. 188 IPC. No previous conviction has been alleged or State Vs. Gopi Chand; FIR No. 41/18; PS RN 2/2 proved against convict. The convict is not involved in any such case, as stated by her. Convict is only sole bread earner in his family. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the accused is facing trial for keeping a tenant without police verification. I am of considered view that ends of justice would be met if the convict is admonished u/s. 3 of The Probation of Offender's Act, 1958.
Announced in open Court JITENDRA SINGH
i.e. the 24th November of, 2018 ACMM:WEST DISTT:DELHI
State Vs. Gopi Chand; FIR No. 41/18; PS RN 2/2