Delhi District Court
State vs . Shambu Parsad on 4 April, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDRA SINGH
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : WEST
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
FIR No. 2772018
U/S. 188 IPC
ID No. 2969/2019
PS Ranjeet Nagar
State Vs. Shambu Parsad
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. No of case 2969/2019
2. Date of commission of offence 21.12.2018
3. Name of complainant HC Pawan Kumar
4. Name of accused Shambu Parsad
S/o. Late Sh. Nathu Ram
R/o; H.No. 2588, Mandir Wali Gali,
Ranjeet 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 04.04.2019
1. FACTS IN BRIEF/ CASE SET UP BY PROSECUTION: Accused has been sent for trial on the allegations that on 21.12.2018, at about 6.00 pm, at H.No. B1, 1 st Floor, Pandav nagar, Delhi, he was found to have kept a tenant without police verification in violation of the notification issued by the ACP concerned.
State Vs. Shambu Parsad; FIR No. 277/18; PS RN 1/5
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 one witness. The testimony of the said witness in brief is as under :
(a)PW1 is ASI Pawan Kumar. PW1 deposed that on 09.01.2019, he was posted at PS Ranjit Nagar as ASI. On that day, he alongwith HC Prem Pal were on patrolling in the area of PS Patel Nagar and tenant verification duty and when they went at H.No. B01, 1 st Floor, Pandav Nagar, Delhi, where they met Sh. Pappu, who was residing in the said premises as tenant. He also met the landlord/the accused Shambhu Parsad. 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 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 State Vs. Shambu Parsad; FIR No. 277/18; PS RN 2/5 accused. The complaint is Ex. PW1/A, bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that on the basis of the complaint the present case was registered through HC Prem Pal. After that, 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. He had also recorded the statement of HC Prem Pal. 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 completion of investigation, he filed the challan before the court.
(b)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. 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 State Vs. Shambu Parsad; FIR No. 277/18; PS RN 3/5 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 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 State Vs. Shambu Parsad; FIR No. 277/18; PS RN 4/5 shall now step forward to divulge my opinion on the respective fate of the accused.
(iv) The testimony of PW1, who is material witness 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, 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 clearly proves 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 IPC against the accused. Accordingly, accused is convicted for the Digitally signed offence u/s 188 IPC. JITENDRA by JITENDRA SINGH SINGH Date:
Judgment dictated and JITENDRA SINGH
2019.04.04
16:01:36 +0530
pronounced in the open Court ACMM:WEST DISTT:DELHI
i.e. the 4th April of , 2019
(This judgment consists of 5 pages)
State Vs. Shambu Parsad; FIR No. 277/18; PS RN 5/5
IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDRA SINGH
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : WEST TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI FIR No. 2772018 U/S. 188 IPC ID No. 2969/2019 PS Ranjeet Nagar State Vs. Shambu Parsad 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. Shambu Parsad ; FIR No. 277/18; 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.
Needless to say that the convict shall be entitled to the benefit u/s. 12 of the Probation of the Offender's Act and no disqualification shall be attached with the conviction as the accused person/convict has been admonished in the instant matter.
Announced in open Court JITENDRA SINGH i.e. the 4th April of, 2019 ACMM:WEST DISTT:DELHI State Vs. Shambu Parsad ; FIR No. 277/18; PS RN 2/2
State Vs. Shambu Parsad ; FIR No. 277/18; PS RN 2/2