Bangalore District Court
State By Police Inspector Of Police vs Parthasarathi .T on 28 January, 2020
8 C.C.No.216/2013
7 C.C.No.216/2013
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED ON PROSECUSION SIDE:
PW.1 : Gangi Reddy.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON PROSECUSION SIDE:
Ex.P1 : Panchanama
Ex.P2 : Report
Ex.P2a : Signature of the witness
Ex.P3 : Photo of the vehicle.
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:
---NIL---
LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED ON DEFENCE SIDE:
---NIL---
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON DEFENCE SIDE:
---NIL---
P.O, MMTC-I, MAYOHALL UNIT,
BANGALORE.
6 C.C.No.216/2013
alleged offences. I rely on a decision reported in (2008(4)
Crimes 241(SC) in the case of Renumalliah Vs. State of
Andhrapradesh. The benefit of doubt always goes to the
accused. Hence, the prosecution is utterly failed to prove
the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
Consequently, I answer the Point No.1 in the Negative.
11. Point No. 2:- For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER
Acting U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable U/Sec.3 & 7 of Essential commodities Act.
The bail bond and surety bond of accused shall stands cancelled (Dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of January, 2020 ).
(Sanjeev Kumar S.Hindoddi) P.O., MMTC-I, MAYOHALL UNIT, BANGALORE.
5 C.C.No.216/2013away from the spot. They brought vehicle and Cans to the station and he submitted them before CW-6 along with report. Report is marked at Ex.P2 and vehicle photo is marked at Ex.P3 and he identified the accused .
10.On perusal of the evidence , it shows that PW.-1 was partly cross examined by the defence counsel. Further cross of PW.-1 was deferred but even after lapse of more than 1 ½ years, PW.-1 did not tendered for further cross-examination. CWs. 2 to 6 not examined by the prosecution and the concerned Police Station fails to secure these material witnesses. PW.-1 whose evidence was recorded in part but he did not tendered for cross- examination and there is no evidence to corroborate with the version of PW.-1 even if his evidence is considered, the material independent panch witness and eye witness and Investigating Officer fails to secured by the concerned police and hence, the prosecution failed to prove the alleged guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The concerned police not produced any seized articles before the court. The prosecution has failed to prove the alleged guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In the absence of corroborative evidence, the accused person cannot be held responsible for the 4 C.C.No.216/2013 Kiran Bar by purchasing kerosene from others and filling in 3 Cans on vehicle bearing No. KA-03- A-8241, at that time, CW-1 and 2 were stopped the vehicle and the accused fled away from the spot by leaving the vehicle bearing No. KA-03-EA- 8241 and 3 Cans containing kerosene and thereby accused have committed the offences punishable U/Sec. 3,7 of Essential Commodities Act .
2)To What Order?
8. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No. 2 : As per final order for the
following:
REASONS
9. Points No.1:- In order to prove the guilt of the accused , the prosecution has examined PW.1 . PW.-1 Gangi Reddy deposed that on 4-11-2012 himself and CW-4 were on patrolling duty on OM Road to trace out accused person in old cases . When they were in front of Kiran Bar , beside BBMP office one person on TVS XL vehicle holding 3 cans was moving. They stopped him and on search, found vehicle bearing No KA-3-EA- 8241 and in 3 cans there was kerosene and he informed to P I Vasudev. PW.-1 further stated that between 12-45 to 1-30 p.m. in the presence of CWs. 2 and 3 he conducted panchanama and seized 35 ltr of kerosene under seizure mahazar. Accused fled 3 C.C.No.216/2013 the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.3,7 of Essential Commodities Act.
4. The cognizance of the offences was taken. Accused appeared through his counsel and got enlarged on bail. The prosecution papers were furnished to accused as per Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. The substances of accusation for the offences punishable U/Sec.3,7 of Essential commodities Act framed, read over and explained to the accused by my predecessor in office. Accused plead not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In support of the prosecution case, out of 06 witnesses, the prosecution has examined one witness as PW.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3. In spite of issue of process against CW- 2 to 6 and PW.-1, the concerned police failed to secure their presence, hence, by rejecting the prayer of Sr.APP, they are dropped. The statement of the accused U/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded. The accused have denied the incriminating evidence read over to him. There is no defence evidence.
6. Heard the arguments.
7. The points that arise for my consideration are as follows:
1)Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 4-11-2012 at 12-30 p.m., within the limits of K.R.Puram Police Station the accused was going on OM Road in front of 2 C.C.No.216/2013 JUDGEMENT The Sub- Inspector of Police, K.R.Pura Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.3,7 of Essential Commodities Act .
2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that:
On 4-11-2012 at 12-30 p.m., within the limits of K.R.Puram Police Station the accused was going on OM Road in front of Kiran Bar by purchasing kerosene from others and filling in 3 Cans on vehicle bearing No. KA-03-A-8241, at that time, CW-1 and 2 were stopped the vehicle and the accused fled away from the spot by leaving the vehicle bearing No. KA-03-EA-8241 and 3 Cans containing kerosene and thereby accused have committed the offences punishable U/Sec. 3,7 of Essential Commodities Act .
3. The first informant Gangi reddy has lodged his first information to K.R.Pura police station. The S.H.O. registered a case against the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.3,7 of Essential commodities Act prepared First information report and sent to jurisdictional Magistrate. After investigation, the Sub- Inspector of police ,KR pura police have filed charge-sheet against IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC COURT-I, MAYOHALL UNIT, BANGALORE.
Present:- Sri. Sanjeev Kumar S. Hindoddi, B.Com., LL.B.,(Spl.) Metropolitan Magistrate, MMTC-I, Bangalore.
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF January, 2020 C.C.NO.216/2013.
Complainant:- State by Police Inspector of Police, K.R.Pura Police Station, Bangalore City.
(Rpd by Sr.Asst. public prosecutor)
V/s
Accused:- Parthasarathi .T.,
Son of Late T.Krishnapurthy,
Aged 49 years,
No.206/2, Anjaneya temple
road, 3rd cross,
Nagavarapalya, C.V.Raman
nagar, Bangalore city.
(Rep. By Sri Dr.R.Ramachandran,
Adv.)
1. Date of Incident: 4-11-2012
2. Date of Institution : 4-11-2012
3. Complainant's Name : Sri Gangireddy
4. Date of commencement : 26-03-2018
of Evidence
5. Date of completion : 26-03-2018.
of Evidence :
6. Offences punishable : Sec.3,7 Essential
Commodities Act.
7. Opinion of the
Presiding Officer : Accused is acquitted.