Delhi District Court
State vs . Harvinder Singh on 14 October, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. M. P. SINGH: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE-02/WEST : DELHI
STATE Vs. Harvinder Singh
FIR No. : 530/2000
U/SEC :9B Explosives Act
PS : Hari Nagar
Unique Case ID Number: 02401R0274452001
JUDGMENT
Serial No. of the case 1213/1/01 Date of commission of offence '15.10.2000 Date of institution of the case 27.04.2001 Name of the complainant ASI Raghubir Singh
Name of accused, parentage & Harvinder Singh s/o Mahender Singh
address r/o VB-133, Virender Nagar, Delhi-
110058
Offence complained or proved Section 9B Explosives Act
Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
Date of arguments '10.10.2011
Final order Convicted
Date of Judgment '14.10.2011
1. The case of the prosecution is as follows: On 15.10.2000 at about 09:15 PM at WZ-568, Gali No. 5, Virender Nagar, Hari Nagar Delhi, the accused was found selling Deepawali crackers without any license/permit. It is on these allegations that the accused has been sent up to face trial for the offence under section 9B Explosives Act.
2. After conclusion of the investigation chargesheet was filed in the Court on 27.04.2001. Cognizance of the offence was taken and accused was summoned. Copies were supplied to the accused. Notice for the offence punishable under Section 9B of Explosives Act was served upon the accused on 06.08.2003 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Matter was thereafter posted for prosecution evidence and during the course of prosecution evidence four prosecution witnesses were examined. Thereafter the statement of the accused was recorded in the manner prescribed under Section 313 CrPC wherein the accused submitted that he was innocent and that he had been falsely implicated. The accused opted not to lead any defence evidence.
4. The four prosecution witnesses that were examined during the course of the trial are as follows: (1) PW1 Ct. Kadam Singh; (2) PW2 HC Mukesh Kumar; (3) PW3 ASI Sita Ram, duty officer, who had exhibited FIR Ex. PW3/A; (4) PW4 Retd. SI Raghubir Singh, IO of this case.
5. I have heard the arguments at Bar and perused the records of the case.
6. In the present case the prosecution witnesses namely PW1 Ct. Kadam Singh, PW2 HC Mukesh Kumar and PW4 SI Raghubir Singh have deposed that while they were on patrolling duty, at about 09:00 PM in Virender Nagar area, they received secret information to the effect that one person was selling crackers without any valid license in the premises WZ-568, Gali No. 5, Virender Nagar Delhi. They have further deposed that a raiding party was constituted, public persons were requested to join raiding party but they refused. It has further come in their evidence that thereafter they reached WZ-568, Virender Nagar Delhi, where they found that the accused was selling crackers. It has further come in their evidence that the accused could not produce any license when asked to do so. These witnesses have further deposed about the seizing of the crackers, registration of the FIR and arrest of the accused. PW1 Constable Kadam was not cross examined by the defence and as such his testimony stood unrebutted and unchallenged. PW2 HC Mukesh and PW4 SI Raghubir were cross examined by the defence. However there is nothing in their cross examination which could be said to create a doubt in the prosecution case. After ten years of the incident, the witnesses cannot naturally be expected to remember as to how many counters were there for selling of crackers or as to how many floors were there in the building where the crackers were being sold. These aspects about which PW2 HC Mukesh could not recall does not render the prosecution case doubtful. Non joining of public witnesses also does not, in my view, render the prosecution case doubtful. In the present case the testimony of the police witnesses about the recovery of fire crackers inspires confidence.
7. Ld. Counsel for the accused had argued that in the present case the prosecution case is extremely doubtful. It was argued by him that WZ- 568, Virender Nagar Delhi is not a shop as deposed by the witnesses; rather it was a residential area. It was also argued by him that the police did not file any FSL report of the crackers in question. Ld. Counsel for the accused also contented that the police witnesses have not filed any documentary proof in the form of DD entry regarding their patrolling duty. For selling of crackers, it is not at all necessary that a shop is to be erected. Crackers can very well be sold from near a residential area by putting up temporary stalls outside the house. Furthermore, in my view, there is no requirement of filing of FSL report for the following reasons. The material in question was being sold by the accused as fire crackers for Deepawali. It was being purchased by the public persons as fire crackers for Deepawali. Furthermore, the case property when produced in the court consisted of large number of fire crackers on visual examination which are commonly sold during Deepawali festival. As such under such circumstances in my view it was not imperative for the prosecution to file FSL report. Lastly, so far as the issue of DD entry is concerned, in my view the mere absence of placing on record in the present case would not render prosecution case doubtful. It is to be noted that all the witnesses have consistently deposed about the incident in question and they have corroborated each other on material aspects.
8. Therefore, in my view, the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accused is therefore convicted of the offence under section 9B Explosives Act.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT M. P. SINGH
ON 14th October, 2011 MM-02/WESTDELHI
14.10.2011