Delhi District Court
State vs . Vikas Jain on 2 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH ANUJ AGARWAL: ACMM01(CENTRAL)/
TIS HAZARI COURT: DELHI
State vs. Vikas Jain
FIR NO. : 12/2018
U/s : 188 IPC
PS : Paharganj
JUDGMENT
a) Sl. No. of the case : 11907/18
b) Date of institution of the case : 2.4.2018
c) Date of commission of offence : 16.1.2018
d) Name of the complainant : HC Narender Singh
e) Name & address of the : Vikash Jain S/o Sh. Mahender Jain
accused R/o H.No. W/ A II2nd Floor Near
Modern Happy School Sakarapur
Delhi.
f) Offence charged with : 188 IPC
g) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
h) Arguments heard on : 2.4.2018
i) Final order : Convicted.
j) Date of Judgment : 2.4.2018
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:
1. Accused has been sent for trial on the allegations that on 16.1.2018 at FIR No.12/2018 State Vs. Vikash Jain Page no. 16 about 4:20Pm at 3204 Gali Dispensary Paharganj, accused failed to get the credential of his employee Anil Kumar verified in violation of duly promulgated order dt. 7.1.2018 of concerned ACP and thereby alleged to have committed an offence punishable under section 188 IPC .
2. After completion of the investigation, challan was filed in the court and copies were supplied to the accused. Thereafter, notice U/sec 188 IPC was served upon accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to substantiate the allegations, only one witness was examined on behalf of the prosecution.
4. PW1 HC Narender is the complainant as well as IO, who deposed that on 16.1.2018 he was posted at PS Paharganj and on that day, at about 4:20 Pm he alongwith Ct. Ram Singh were on patrolling duty and during checking, they reached at 3204 Gali Dispensary and met Anil Kumar who informed that he was working in the said shop for last 910 months and his police verification was not done by his employer namely Vikash Jain. He further deposed that he asked from accused Vikash Jain about police verification of said Anil Kumar but he failed to produce any document regarding the same. PW1 further stated that accused violated the order no. 45844/ ACP/ Paharganj dt. 7.1.2018, that he prepared rukka Ex. PW 1/A and same handed over to Ct.Ram Singh for registration of FIR Ex. PW 1/ B, FIR No.12/2018 State Vs. Vikash Jain Page no. 26 prepared site plan Ex. PW 1/ C, arrested accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW 1/ D, conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW 1/ E for violation of the notification, that complaint u/s 195 CrPC by concerned ACP Ex. PW 1/F, that he recorded statement of witnesses. He correctly identified accused.
5. PE was closed by even date order of this court. Statement of accused U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C recorded in the manner provided u/s 281 CrPC wherein all the incriminating evidence appearing against him was put to him. The accused admitted that he did not get the credential of his employee verified. Accused chose not to lead any defence evidence in his favour.
6. I have heard Ld. APP for State, accused and perused the record.
7. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused persons. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
9. Ld APP for the State had argued that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against `the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Ld APP for FIR No.12/2018 State Vs. Vikash Jain Page no. 36 the State had also argued that the factum of keeping the employee without police verification 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 Act or the notification.
10. 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.
FIR No.12/2018 State Vs. Vikash Jain Page no. 46
(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) Perusal of the testimony of PW1 who is the material witness shows that he has supported the prosecution version fully. The relevant extract of the examination in chief of PW1 is reproduced below for ready reference: "PW1: On 16.1.2018 I was on patrolling duty and during checking they met Anil Kumar ....and Anil Kumar informed that his police verification was not done by his employer namely Vikash Jain .....I met accused who failed to produce any document regarding his employee verification."
(v) The testimony of PW1 has remained unrebutted as during cross examination, accused had merely given a suggestion that he was falsely implicated without challenging the version of PW1 seriously. The testimony of witness is reliable and inspires confidence of this court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW 1. Further as evident from record, accused himself admitted the allegations of not getting police verification done of his employee, in his statement recorded in terms of section 281 CrPC.
11. Thus, in view of the testimony of PW1 coupled with version of accused FIR No.12/2018 State Vs. Vikash Jain Page no. 56 (recorded u/s 281 CrPC), prosecution has successfully proved that accused had failed to get verified the credentials of his employee Anil Kumar in violation of duly promulgated order dt. 7.1.2018 of concerned ACP. Hence, he stands convicted of offence u/s 188 IPC. Parties be heard on point on sentence.
Digitally signed by ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL
AGRAWAL Date: 2018.04.02
15:14:27 +0530
Announced in the open court (Anuj Agarwal)
on 2.4.2018 ACMM01(C)/THC/Delhi
2.4.2018
FIR No.12/2018 State Vs. Vikash Jain Page no. 66
FIR No. 176/17 State Vs. Ishtkhar Ali 11