Delhi District Court
State vs . Ashwani Verma on 21 April, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. BHARAT AGGARWAL, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE-05, SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
FIR No.381/10
PS - Jagatpuri
U/s 9B Explosives Act, 1884 & 286/336 IPC
State Vs. Ashwani Verma
JUDGMENT
A. SL. NO. OF THE CASE : 81177/2016
B. DATE OF INSTITUTION : 17.10.2011
C. DATE OF OFFENCE : 04.11.2010
D. NAME OF THE : SI Rajesh Dangwal
COMPLAINANT
E. NAME OF THE ACCUSED : Ashwani Verma s/o Lt. Sh. Ashok
PERSON Verma
F. OFFENCE : U/s 9B Explosives Act, 1884 &
286/336 IPC
COMPLAINED OF
G. PLEA OF ACCUSED : Pleaded not guilty
H. FINAL ORDER : Acquittal
I. DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 21.04.2022
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. Accused is produced before the court to stand trial for the offence punishable u/s 9B of the Explosives Act, 1884 & 286/336 of the Indian Penal Code.
FIR no. 381/10 PS Jagatpuri State vs. Ashwani Verma Page no. 1 of 17
2. In brief, facts of the case as alleged by prosecution are that on 04.11.2010, IO SI Rajesh Dangwal alongwith Ct. Sompal and Ct. Anoop were on patrolling duty in govt. gypsy no. DL-1CJ-7422 alongwith driver Ct. Kanwarpal and when they reached near Som Bazar at around 02.30 pm, one secret informer informed that accused Ashwani Verma r/o H.No. 1, New Govind Pura in front of Shah Namkeen shop, who is running a shop in the name of "A.K. Jeweller" has stored some fire crackers at first floor of the said shop for sale without any license.
IO informed about the same to SHO PS Jagatpuri telephonically and SHO directed to investigate the same. Thereafter, IO alongwith SI Sompal and Ct. Anoop constituted a raiding party and asked 4-5 public persons to join the investigation but no one joined the investigation. At about 03.00 pm, they reached at the spot in gypsy and met the accused. Thereafter, IO informed him about the information regarding storage of fire crackers at first floor and asked him to assist in the search at the first floor of the said premises. In the presence of accused, they searched the first floor of the premises and found fire crackers in huge quantity of around 28 types which were then seized by police. Accused failed to produce the license and recovered crackers of 11 type were kept in carton box and marked serial no. 1 and remaining 17 types of fire crackers were kept in other carton box marked as serial no. 2 and police prepared the pullandas of both the cartons boxes and sealed the same with the seal of 'RD'. Both the cartons were weighed by Ct. Anoop and carton at serial no. 1 was found to be of 25 kg and carton at serial no. 2 was found to be of 33 kg, and accordingly total 58 Kg of fire crackers were seized from the accused.
FIR u/s 9B Explosives Act, 1884 & 286/336 IPC was lodged by the IO SI Rajesh Dangwal and further investigation was marked to SI Sandeep. IO SI Sandeep prepared the site plan, seized the case property and collected the evidence. Thereafter, IO SI Sandeep, arrested the accused Ashwani Verma and released the accused on police bail. IO deposited the case property in FIR no. 381/10 PS Jagatpuri State vs. Ashwani Verma Page no. 2 of 17 malkhana and after completion of investigation, IO filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable u/s 9B Explosives Act, 1884 & 286/336 IPC.
3. Accused was produced before the court on 17.10.2011 and copy of charge-sheet was supplied to him as per Sec. 207 Cr.P.C. Further, accused was charged for the offence u/s 286/336 IPC & s. 9B Explosives Act on 02.08.2014 by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE:
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined following witnesses :
4.1 PW-1 HC Ravinder deposed that 04.11.2020, he was working as duty officer between 04.00 pm to 12.00 mid night. On that day at about 06.15 pm, Ct. Anoop Kumar handed over to him a rukka sent by IO SI Rajesh Dangwal. He lodged the FIR Ex. PW1/1(OSR) and he proved the rukka Ex. PW1/B. 4.2 PW-2 Ct. Som Pal deposed that on 04.11.2010, he was posted at PS Anand Vihar. On that day he alongwith Ct. Anoop, driver Ct. Kanwar Pal and SI Rajesh Dangwal were doing patrolling duty and they were present on the road of Som Bazar.
He further stated that a secret informer met with SI Rajesh Dangwal and he told that crackers without license are kept in shop no. I-1, New Govind Pura, first floor. Thereafter, they went to the abovesaid shop and met the accused. It is further stated FIR no. 381/10 PS Jagatpuri State vs. Ashwani Verma Page no. 3 of 17 that the accused had kept the crackers in a shop but he could not produce any license regarding crackers. SI Rajesh Dangwal prepared rukka and Ct. Anoop was sent to PS Jagatpuri for registration of FIR . After registration of FIR he came back at the spot with copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over to SI Rajesh Dangwal. IO kept all the crackers in cartons and sealed with the seal of 'RD'. He stated that IO seized the case property vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/A, prepared site plan, arrested the accused vide memo Ex. 2/B and conducted personal search memo Ex. PW2/C. He correctly identified the accused during his evidence in court.
He cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused wherein inter alia he stated that no public witness were joined during the investigation by the IO and the shop was situated at a populated area and public persons were also present in the market at the time the alleged raid.
4.3. PW-3 Insp. Rajesh Dangwal deposed that on 04.11.2010, he was posted at PS Jagatpuri as Sub-Inspector. He stated that SHO had directed to inspect the area regarding illegal selling of fire crackers. When he alongwith Ct. Sompal and Ct. Anup and driver Kawarpal were patrolling in the Som Bazar area at time about 02.30 pm, one secret informer met them and he told that one person namely Ashwani Verma runs his shop in the name of "A.K. Jewellers" at property bearing no. shop no. I-1, New Govind Pura and he has stored the fire crackers in huge quantity at first floor of the said shop without any license. Thereafter, he briefed about the same to the accompanying police officials and they constituted a raiding party and also requested public FIR no. 381/10 PS Jagatpuri State vs. Ashwani Verma Page no. 4 of 17 persons to join the raiding party but they refused to join the raiding party.
He stated that at about 03.00 pm, they went to first floor of the premises and met the accused. Thereafter, in his presence they searched one room of the premises and found that fire crackers in huge quantity were stored there. Accused failed to produce any license and 28 types of different fire crackers were found there which were kept in separate cartons which were then sealed and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/A. He directed Ct. Sompal to weigh both the boxes from any nearby shop and after weighing both boxes, the weight of one box was found to be 25 kg and another of 33 kg. Further investigation was handed over to SI Sandeep. At his instance, IO SI Sandeep Kumar prepared the site plan which is Mark A and also recorded his statement. Accused was correctly identified by PW-3 and he also correctly identified the case property.
PW-3 was cross examined at length by Ld. Counsel for accused wherein inter alia he stated that first floor of the property was a residential premises and no shop of fire crackers was being run by the accused. He further stated that no photographs of the seized fire crackers were taken.
4.4. PW-4 Insp. Sandeep deposed that on 04.11.2010 he was posted at PS Jagatpuri as Sub-Inspector. He stated that on that day at around 06.00-06.30 pm, duty officer had informed him telephonically that a case was marked to him for investigation. Thereafter, he approached the duty officer and collected the copy of FIR and original tehrir and the same are Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW1/B respectively. He alongwith Ct. Anup went to spot i.e. FIR no. 381/10 PS Jagatpuri State vs. Ashwani Verma Page no. 5 of 17 Aggarwal Jewellers shop, Som Bazar Road and met with SI Rajesh Dangwal and Ct. Sompal. Thereafter, SI Rajesh Dangwal produced the accused and handed over the case property with seizure memo Ex. PW2/A and informed that the said accused Ashwani Verma had stored the fire crackers in huge quantity without any valid license or permission. Thereafter, PW-4 prepared the site plan at the instance of SI Rajesh Dangwal which is Ex. PW4/A. He arrested the accused Ashwani Verma vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/B and also personally searched him vide search memo Ex. PW2/C. He then released the accused on police bail. He stated that they again reached at PS Jagatpuri with case property and same was deposited in Malkhana, PS Jagatpuri. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C in the present case.
He was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused wherein inter alia he stated that he has not received any explosive report from the concerned department. He further stated that he could not deposit the case property in concerned explosive department due to transfer in February, 2021. He further stated that there was no display board on the first floor of the property regarding sale.
4.5 PW-5 Retired ASI Amarpal Singh deposed that in May, 2011, after transfer of IO SI Sandeep PS Jagatpuri, he had received the present case file from MHCR PS Jagatpuri marked by SHO concerned with direction to prepare the charge-sheet. The case property was already deposited in malkhana, PS Jagatpuri. After discussion with senior police official of PS FIR no. 381/10 PS Jagatpuri State vs. Ashwani Verma Page no. 6 of 17 Jagatpuri and going through the file, on 25.07.2011 he had completed the charge-sheet and filed the same before the court.
He cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused at length whereby inter alia he stated that he did no obtain any opinion regarding explosives substance i.e. fire crackers.
4.6 PW-6 HC Anoop deposed on similar lines as PW-2 Ct. Som Pal & PW-3 Insp. Rajesh Dangwal and the same is not being reiterated here for the sake of brevity. During his cross- examination he inter alia stated that there were 28 types of crackers which were kept by the IO in two separate boxes and that the spot is a busy area where public persons were present.
5. After completion of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused person u/s. 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on 23.11.2021, wherein he stated that he bought the fire crackers for his own personal use.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
6. In order to prove its case, defence has examined following witnesses :
6.1 DW-1 Accused/Ashwani Verma deposed that on 04.11.2010, in afternoon he received a call from his mother that police officials had come to his home after which he reached his home and met two police officials namely ASI Rajesh Dangwal and one other police official. During the search, they found some fire crackers lying in his home which were purchased by him and his three cousins from Chandni Chowk, Dariba for celebration of Diwali festival. Thereafter, police officials told him that they have to seize the fire crackers and he need to come to the PS. FIR no. 381/10 PS Jagatpuri State vs. Ashwani Verma Page no. 7 of 17 Thereafter, he alongwith his cousin went to police station and police officials asked him to furnish personal bail bond. He further stated that after some time, IO Sandeep again came back to his home for the purpose of search and informed him that the FIR was lodged against him.
He cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State whereby inter alia he stated that he cannot tell which mobile number was used by him or his mother. He further stated that he reached his home within 10 minutes and he does not remember the name of the shop from where he purchased the fire crackers. He further stated he purchased the fire crackers for Rs. 18,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- and he cannot tell the exact date of purchase. He further stated that he cannot produce the bill and he kept the fire crackers for his personal use.
6.2 DW-2 Sh. Kamal Kishor Chauhan deposed that on 04.11.2010, he alongwith accused went to the market and accused received the call from his home. Thereafter, they reached the house of the accused and found that three police officials were present there and they were collecting fire crackers which were kept in the house of the accused for the celebration of diwali. They apprised the police officials that the fire crackers were bought for the celebration of diwali two days ago but the police officials did not listen to them and seized the fire crackers and arrested the accused.
During his cross-examination by Ld. APP, DW-2 inter alia stated that fire crackers were purchased from Chandni Chowk for Rs. 17,000/- to Rs.18,000/- and he does not know the quantity of the FIR no. 381/10 PS Jagatpuri State vs. Ashwani Verma Page no. 8 of 17 fire crackers. Thereafter, the defence evidence was closed vide order dated 05.03.2022.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION AND DEFENCE:
7. It was argued on the behalf of the defence that the prosecution has failed to make out any case against the accused and he deserves to be acquitted. It was submitted by Ld. Counsel for accused that the accused has been falsely implicated by the police officials in the present case and the entire prosecution story is made-up and no offence has been committed by the accused. He has further submitted that the seized fire crackers were kept for own/personal use and not for purpose of sale by the accused. He has further argued that prosecution has failed to prove that there was any intended use for sale purposes by the accused of the seized fire crackers. It was argued that prosecution has failed to prove any rashness and negligence on the part of the accused which would have endangered life of any other human being and therefore accused is not liable for offence punishable under section 286/336 IPC.
8. It was further argued on the behalf of the accused that there is no public witness to evidence the recovery of the seized fire crackers from the accused person. It was further vehemently argued that prosecution has failed to prove that the fire crackers seized from the accused are indeed "explosives" under the Explosives Act, 1884 and there is no explosive or FSL report on record to prove the same. He has further argued that PW-3 during his cross-examination on 25.10.2021 has admitted that no shop of fire crackers was being run by the accused at the premises from where the seizure was made. It was also argued that the present case is covered under Rule 9(5) of the Explosives Rule, 2008 as the recovery made from the accused person of the fire crackers was under
100 Kgs and meant for personal use and therefore, he is liable to be acquitted.
FIR no. 381/10 PS Jagatpuri State vs. Ashwani Verma Page no. 9 of 17
9. It was also argued on the behalf of the accused that only case of the prosecution is that the accused was found in possession of fire crackers and nothing more. He argued that mere possession of fire crackers is not prohibited by law. Finally, it was vehemently argued on behalf of the accused that he has not committed the offence he has charged for and prosecution has failed to discharge its burden to prove that the accused has committed the offence complained of.
10. On the other hand, it was argued by the Ld. APP for the prosecution that prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt especially through the evidence of the PW-2 Ct. Sompal, PW-3 Inspector Rajesh and PW-4 Inspector Sandeep. Ld. APP has further argued that the prosecution has been able to establish that the accused has committed the offence of possession of explosives without any license punishable under section 9B Explosives Act, 1884 and has dealt with the said explosives substances rashly and negligently endangering human life and therefore committed offences punishable under section 286/336 IPC.
11. It was argued by Ld. APP for the State that possession of the fire crackers has been admitted by the accused during the defence evidence and accused has failed to take necessary precautions which is required to be taken for explosives. Finally, it was argued by Ld. APP that the prosecution witnesses have collectively proved the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under 9B Explosives Act and Section 286/336 IPC.
FIR no. 381/10 PS Jagatpuri State vs. Ashwani Verma Page no. 10 of 17 FINDINGS WITH REASONS:
12. Arguments were heard at length from both the sides and the case file has been carefully perused. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that on 04.11.2010 at about 03.00 PM the accused was found in the possession of fire crackers which were seized in two separate cartons of 25kg and 33kg and he was unable to produce any license for the said possession of fire crackers. It is the case of the prosecution that such possession of "explosives" is punishable under section 9B of the Explosives Act, 1884 and as the accused had kept the explosives in a rash manner which was likely to cause hurt or injury to public persons and probable danger to human life, therefore the accused shall be punished under section 286 and 336 of IPC.
13. Considering the allegations of the prosecution and the material available on record, the accused was charged for offences punishable under Section 9B Explosives Act, 1884 and section 286/336 of IPC. by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 02.08.2014. Accordingly, the accused person has faced trial for offence of keeping possession of explosives without any license and doing act negligently and rashly with regard to explosives substance which can cause danger to human life.
14. It is a settled proposition of law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. It is also well settled that in order to prove its case, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused. The burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the prosecution and it never shifts to the accused. The accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such doubt entitles the accused to acquittal.
FIR no. 381/10 PS Jagatpuri State vs. Ashwani Verma Page no. 11 of 17
15. At this stage, it is relevant to understand that the term "explosive" which is defined under section 2(d) of The Explosives Act, 1884, which is as follows:
(d) "explosive' means gunpowder, nitroglycerine, nitroglycol, guncotton, di-nitro-toluene, tri-nitro-toluene, picric acid, di-nitro-phenol, tri-nitro-resorcinol (styphnic acid), cyclo-guanidine, lead azide, lead penta-erythritol-
tetranitrate, tetryl, nitro-guandine, lead azide, lead styphynate, fulminate of mercury or nay other metal, diazo- di-nitro-phenol, coloured fire or any other substance whether a single chemical compound or a mixture of substances, whether solid or liquid or gaseous used or manufactured with a view to produce a practical effect by explosion or pyrotechnic effect; and includes fog-signals, fireworks, fuses, rockets, percussion-caps, detonators cartidges, ammunition of all descriptions and every adaption or preparation of an explosive as defined in this clause;
16. Further section 9B of the said Act upon which the prosecution has relied inter alia provides that possession of 'explosive' in contravention of rules made under section 5 of the said Act or the conditions of the license granted under the said rules shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years or with fine which may extend to Rs. 3,000/- or with both. It is the simple case of the prosecution that as the accused was found in possession of fire works which are covered within the definition of "Explosive" as defined under section 4(d) without any license, he is therefore guilty of the offence punishable under section 9B of the Act. It is the further the case of the prosecution that since the explosives were not kept properly and no precautions were taken by the accused, it could have possibly led to any accident thereby causing probable harm or injury to any other person and therefore the accused is liable for the offences punishable under section 286 and 336 IPC.
FIR no. 381/10 PS Jagatpuri State vs. Ashwani Verma Page no. 12 of 17
17. To prove the guilt of the accused for the offences he is charged with in the present matter, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove the following facts:
a) that the accused was found in possession of the fire works which is prohibited under The Explosives Act, 1884; and
b) that the accused has rashly or negligently endangered human life or omitted to take such precautions with explosives which is required to guard against probable danger to human life.
18. It is the cardinal principle of criminal law that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It is also well established that any material contradictions and material inconsistencies in the case of the prosecution shall go in the favour of the accused and while such contradictions exist, the accused shall not be convicted for the offence he is charged with. The prosecution is burdened to prove that there are no loopholes in the version put forth in the charge-sheet and in the considered opinion of this court any weaknesses in the prosecution's case shall be carefully scrutinised as the accused person is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty.
19. Before coming to the evidence led in the present matter, it is essential to test that whether or not the possession of fireworks is actually prohibited under The Explosives Act, 1884 and possession of fireworks by the accused amounting to 58 Kgs would amount to an offence under the said Act. Section 9B of the Act inter alia prohibits possession of explosives in contravention of the rules made under section 5 of the Act or in contravention of the conditions under which the license was granted.
20. In the exercise of the powers conferred under section 5 and 7 of The Explosives Act, 1884 the Central Government has published The Explosives FIR no. 381/10 PS Jagatpuri State vs. Ashwani Verma Page no. 13 of 17 Rules, 2008 which had come into effect from 31.12.2008, which had also repealed the previous rules of 1983 by virtue of Rule no. 139.
At this juncture it is relevant to refer to Rule 9 of The Explosives Rule, 2008 which falls under Chapter III (General Provisions) and prescribes inter alia that no license shall be necessary in case where possession of fire works does not exceed 100 Kg for own use and which is not for sale. The relevant provision is reproduced hereinafter:-
Rule 9. No license needed in certain cases.-
Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 7, no license shall be necessary for the following cases, namley:-
(5) possession of fireworks not exceeding one hundred kilogram for own use and not for sale;
21. The term "fireworks" is defined under Sub-rule 25 of Rule 2 of the 2008 rules which means low hazard explosive manufactured with a view to produce coloured fire or flame, light effect, sound effect, smoke effect or combinations of such effects. Therefore from the bare perusal of the definition of "fireworks" it can be inferred that the seized material in the present case may fall under the definition of "fireworks".
22. Therefore from comprehensive perusal of Rule 9 of The Explosives Rules, 2008 and Section 9B of The Explosives Act, 1884 it becomes quite evident that mere possession of fireworks is not sought to be prohibited under the scheme of the Act. It is incumbent upon the prosecution in case of recovery of fireworks to establish beyond reasonable doubt that seized fireworks were above 100 Kg, if meant for own use or that the fireworks were meant for sale.
23. In the present matter it is essential to note that PW-3 during his cross- examination on 25.10.2021 has specifically admitted that no shop of fire crackers was being run by the accused in the present case. Even otherwise, it FIR no. 381/10 PS Jagatpuri State vs. Ashwani Verma Page no. 14 of 17 is the case of the prosecution that total recovery of 58 Kgs of fire crackers was made from the accused. It was essential on the part of the prosecution to prove that the recovered fire crackers were meant for sale and not for own use, however, none of the prosecution witness has been able to establish on record that the seized fire crackers were kept for sale purpose by the accused. In fact the only emphasis of the prosecution version is recovery of huge quantity of fire crackers without collecting any evidence whatsoever regarding its intended use while completely ignoring the provisions of The Explosives Rules, 2008 which in fact clarifies the law applicable on the subject. The police has completely ignored the fact that the opening clause of Section 9B of the Act states that possession in contravention of rules made under Section 5 of the Act is prohibited and The Explosives Rules, 2008 which had come into effect prior to the seizure made in the present case are actually made by the Central Government in exercise of power conferred under Section 5 of the Act itself.
24. In the present case, it was essential for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the fire crackers seized from the accused were meant for sale, however, the prosecution has completely failed to prove the same on record. In fact it is not even the case of the prosecution that the material seized was intended to be sold in the market for profits by the accused as none of the prosecution witness has given any testimony on those lines.
25. It is also pertinent to note that the prosecution has admittedly not obtained any expert opinion regarding the fact that the seized materials vide seizure memo Ex. PW-2A/Mark-X are actually 'explosives' as defined under Section 4(d) of The Explosives Act, 1884. Be that as it may, even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the seized materials are explosives yet the present case is squarely covered under Sub-rule 5 of Rule 9 of The Explosives Rules, 2008 as explained above. In the considered opinion of this FIR no. 381/10 PS Jagatpuri State vs. Ashwani Verma Page no. 15 of 17 court, the police has proceeded to merely seize the fireworks without having any knowledge regarding the law applicable to the facts of the present case and have wasted essential resources in prosecuting the accused. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid observations this court has reached to the conclusion that accused has not committed the offence punishable under section 9B of The Explosives Act, 1884.
26. As regards Section 286 and 336 IPC for which the accused has been charged with, it is necessary to understand the law provided therein. Section 286 and 336 IPC are reproduced herein below.
286. Negligent conduct with respect to explosive substances.- whoever does , with any explosive substance, any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other other person, or knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with any explosive to human life from that substances, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
336. Act endangering life or personal safety of others.- Whoever does any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to two hundred and fifty rupees, or with both.
27. Bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions show that to bring home the guilt of offence punishable under 286 and 336 IPC, it is extremely essential upon the prosecution to prove rashness or negligence on the part of the accused while handling the alleged explosives. However, in the present case from the perusal of the entire evidence led on record, it is quite apparent that prosecution has not led any evidence to prove rashness or negligence on the part of the accused FIR no. 381/10 PS Jagatpuri State vs. Ashwani Verma Page no. 16 of 17 and hence since the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the accused cannot be convicted for the offences under section 286 or 336 IPC.
28. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the allegations leveled against the accused and the police has filed the present charge-sheet in complete ignorance of the provisions of law and therefore the accused is liable to be acquitted.
Accordingly, in view of the findings given above, the accused is hereby acquitted.
29. Copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the accused against receiving.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (Bharat Aggarwal)
Today i.e. 21.04.2022 MM-05/ SHD, Karkardooma
Courts/Delhi
Present judgment consists of 17 pages and each page bears my initials.
(Bharat Aggarwal) MM-05/ SHD, Karkardooma Courts/Delhi 21.04.2022 FIR no. 381/10 PS Jagatpuri State vs. Ashwani Verma Page no. 17 of 17