Delhi District Court
State vs Mangal@Mange on 6 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. EBBANI AGGARWAL
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-03
NORTH-WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Cr. Case No. 7258/2025
FIR No.: 237/2025
P.S.: North Rohini
State Vs. Mangal @ Mange
U/s. 25 of Arms Act, 1959
STATE
VERSUS
MANGAL @ MANGE
S/o Sh. Swarn Singh
R/o H. No. B-49, Sadar Colony, Mange Ram Park
Budh Vihar, Rohini
Delhi
Date of institution of case : 03.06.2025
Date of reserving the judgment : 06.01.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 06.01.2026
JUDGMENT
CNR No. DLNW020942072025 Date of Commission of Offence 07.04.2025 Date of Institution of the Case 03.06.2025 Name of the complainant Ct. Ganesh Name of the accused Mangal @ Mange Offence complained or proved Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 Plea of the Accused Pleaded not guilty Final Order Acquitted Digitally signed by EBBANI EBBANI AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.06 15:14:18 +0530
State vs. Mangal @ Mange FIR No. 237/2025 P.S. North Rohini Page No. 1 of 8 BRIEF FACTS, COGNIZANCE AND CHARGE
1. Facts, in brief, as alleged by the prosecution are that on 07.04.2025 at about 08:15 PM, Near MTNL Office, Sector-5/6 Dividing Road, Sector-6, Rohini, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of P.S. North Rohini, accused Mangal @ Mange was found in possession of one buttondar knife, without any license or permit in contravention of the notifi- cation issued by Delhi Administration of Delhi dated 17.02.1979.
2. Investigation was carried out and upon completion, the in- stant charge-sheet alleging an offence punishable under Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 was filed against the accused. Thereafter, cognizance of the offence and the accused was summoned.
3. Upon appearance of accused, copy of charge sheet and an- nexed documents was supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 230 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. (hereinafter referred to as "BNSS")
4. Prima facie case was made out the accused Mangal @ Mange and charge for an offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act, 1959 was framed against him on 09.06.2025 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Statement of accused in terms of Section 330 of BNSS was recorded wherein the accused admitted the genuineness of FIR No. 237/25 PS North Rohini i.e Ex. A-1, Endorsement on Rukka which is Ex. A-2, Certificate u/s 63 (4) (C) of BSA regarding the aforesaid FIR i.e. Ex. A-3, GD No. 101A which is Ex. A-4, GD No. 53A which is Ex. A-5 and DAD Digitally signed by EBBANI EBBANI AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
State vs. Mangal @ Mange FIR No. 237/2025 P.S. North Rohini Page No. 2 of 8 2026.01.06 15:14:25 +0530 notification dated 29.10.1980 which is Ex. A-6, without ad- mitting the contents of the same.
6. In view of the above, witnesses mentioned at serial no. 3 and 5 in the list of prosecution witnesses were dropped and thereafter, the matter was fixed for recording of prosecution evidence.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
7. In order to substantiate the allegations, the prosecution ex- amined three witnesses, i.e., PW-1 Ct. Babu Lal, PW-2 Ct. Ganesh who were on patrolling duty and PW-3 HC Fouuji is the IO who has filed the present chargesheet. PW-1, 2 and 3 have correctly identified the case property which is Ex. P-1 and have deposed on similar lines as the case of prosecution. Further, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 were duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused wherein all the three wit- nesses have supported the case of the prosecution.
8. Since, no other witness was left to be examined, prosecution evidence was closed on 06.08.2025.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 351 of BNSS
9. Statement of accused person in terms of Section 351 of BNSS was recorded wherein all the incriminating evidence were put to the accused, to which the accused stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Further, the accused person did not opt to lead defence evidence and the matter was listed for final arguments.
FINAL AGRUMENTS Digitally signed by EBBANI AGGARWAL EBBANI AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.06 15:14:34 +0530 State vs. Mangal @ Mange FIR No. 237/2025 P.S. North Rohini Page No. 3 of 8
10. It is argued by Ld. APP for the state that from the ocular and documentary evidence on record, prosecution has been able to prove the possession of buttondar knife without permit on person of accused beyond reasonable doubt and has there- fore, submitted that accused be convicted of the offence charged.
11.Per contra, it has been argued by the Ld. LADC for the accused that accused is completely innocent and recovery of case property has been falsely implanted upon him. It is further argued by Ld. LADC for the accused that non- joinder of public witness despite availability casts shadow of doubt on prosecution story and further that prosecution has not placed on record the video of seizure of the buttandar knife from the accused in terms of Section 105 of BNSS. It is further argued by Ld. LADC for the accused that tampering with the contents of the sealed parcel cannot be ruled out as seal was not handed to an independent witness. At the end, it is submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the accused be acquitted of the alleged offence.
DISCUSSION ON MERITS
12.This Court has carefully perused the case record, has heard arguments advanced by Ld. APP for the state as well as by Ld. LADC for accused and has carefully gone through the entire material available on record and evidence led on be- half of the prosecution.
13.In order to establish commission of offence under Section 25 of Arms Act,1959 prosecution has to prove possession of the prohibited arms or ammunition beyond reasonable Digitally signed by EBBANI EBBANI AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
State vs. Mangal @ Mange FIR No. 237/2025 P.S. North Rohini Page No. 4 of 8 2026.01.06 15:14:41 +0530 doubt. Therefore, short point for determination before this Court is as under:
"Whether on 07.04.2025 at about 08:15 PM, Near MTNL Office, Sector-5/6 Dividing Road, Sector-6, Rohini, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of P.S. North Rohini, accused Mangal @ Mange was found in possession of one buttondar knife, without any license or permit?"
14.In order to prove the recovery of the buttondar knife from accused, prosecution has relied upon seizure memo and testimony of the three witnesses, who all are police witnesses.
Absence of independent witnesses
15.It is the case of the prosecution that the accused was apprehended and the buttondar knife was recovered from him at around 08:15 PM at a public place and despite that, no independent public person has been made as a witness. This fact makes the manner of conducting of inquiry, seizure and search etc. on the spot of arrest of accused alongwith the alleged recovery of the buttondar knife highly suspicious.
16.With respect to the same, testimony of PW-3/IO is being discussed who has deposed that after apprehension of the accused, public persons were available at the spot. PW-3/IO requested public persons to join the investigation, but all the public persons refused to join the same and left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses. However, perusal of the record shows that no written notice was served on the public persons by PW-3/IO and in absence of the written notice, explanation given by PW-3/IO cannot be Digitally signed by EBBANI EBBANI AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
State vs. Mangal @ Mange FIR No. 237/2025 P.S. North Rohini Page No. 5 of 8 2026.01.06 15:14:48 +0530 accepted by this Court.
17. In the case of Anoop vs. State, 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held under:
"18. It is repeatedly laid down by this Court that in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evident that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shop-keepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC".
18.In view of the same, a mere statement of non-availability or unwillingness of public person to join as a witness will not be sufficient particularly when at the relevant time, it was not difficult to procure the presence of public witnesses. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that no sincere efforts have been made by the IO to join public witnesses and non- joining of independent witness casts a doubt on the fairness of the investigation as well as recovery of the buttandar knife from the possession of accused.
Non-compliance of Section 105 of BNSS
19.Section 105 of BNSS mandates that search of a place and seizure of a property/ article must be recorded through audio-video means and the video of such search and seizure is to be forwarded to the District Magistrate, Sub-divisional Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of the first class without any delay.
20.However, no such video of the seizure of the buttandar knife Digitally signed by EBBANI EBBANI AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
State vs. Mangal @ Mange FIR No. 237/2025 P.S. North Rohini Page No. 6 of 8 2026.01.06 15:14:55 +0530 has been placed on record by the prosecution and the said fact makes the entire the manner of conducting of inquiry, seizure and search etc. on the spot of arrest of accused alongwith the alleged recovery of the buttondar knife highly suspicious.
21.Accordingly, the fact of recovery of the alleged case property from the possession of accused persons remains clouded which cast a doubt upon the case of the prosecution and prosecution has not been able to prove the same beyond reasonable doubt.
CONCLUSION
22. It is trite in criminal jurisprudence that in order to bring home a charge against the accused, the prosecution is under an obligation to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt on basis of cogent, convincing and reliable evidence and in case of any doubt, the benefit must necessarily be extended to the accused.
23.In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, marshalling of evidence placed on record and legal position, this Court is of the opinion that prosecution has not been able to discharge the burden cast upon it beyond reasonable doubt and there are sufficient doubts regarding recovery of alleged case property from accused. Therefore, benefit of doubt should be extended to the accused and accused Mangal @ Mange S/o Sh. Swarn Singh is hereby acquitted for alleged commission of offence under Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959.
24.Case property be confiscated to the State.
25.File be consigned to record room after due compliance. Digitally signed by EBBANI EBBANI AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
State vs. Mangal @ Mange FIR No. 237/2025 P.S. North Rohini Page No. 7 of 8 2026.01.06 15:15:04 +0530
26.This judgement contains 8 pages and all pages have been digitally signed by undersigned.
Digitally signed by EBBANI AGGARWAL EBBANI Date: AGGARWAL 2026.01.06 15:15:08 Announced in open Court (EBBANI AGGARWAL) +0530 on 06.01.2026 Judicial Magistrate First Class-03 North-West, Rohini, Delhi
State vs. Mangal @ Mange FIR No. 237/2025 P.S. North Rohini Page No. 8 of 8