Delhi District Court
In Re: State vs Ajay Singh Negi on 24 September, 2013
IN THE COURT OF GAURAV RAO: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:SAKET
COURTS : NEW DELHI
In Re: STATE VERSUS AJAY SINGH NEGI
DD No. 49B dated 08.12.2012
U/s 53/116 DP Act
P.S. Sarita Vihar
Date of Institution of Case : 22.12.2012
Judgment Reserved for : 24.09.2013
Date of Judgment : 24.09.2013
JUDGMENT:
(a) The serial no. of the case : 936/3/12
(b) The date of commission of offence : 07.12.2012
(c)The name of complainant : SI Nitin Kumar
(d) The name, parentage, of accused : Ajay Singh Negi s/o Bachan
Singh Negi, R/o D55/56,
Dakshin Puri, Ambedkar Nagar,
New Delhi.
Present Address : As above
(e) The offence complained of : U/s 53/116 DP Act
DD no. 49B State Vs. Ajay Singh Negi 1/5
(f) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) The final order : Convicted
(h) The date of such order : 24.09.2013
Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:
1. In brief the case of the prosecution is that on 07.12.2012 at about 02.30 p.m. accused was found roaming in Delhi i.e. in the area of Dakshin Puri inspite of an Externment order bearing no. 455471/Externment Cell/SED New Delhi dated 31.05.2013 u/s 47 of Delhi Police Act issued against accused which was in operation at that time and thus thereby the accused committed offence punishable 53/116 DP Act.
2. Charge sheet was filed in the court and in compliance of Section 207 accused was supplied the documents. Thereafter vide orders dated 25.03.2013 charge u/s 53/116 DP Act was framed against accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove the charges against the accused, prosecution examined three witnesses.
4. Today the matter was fixed for SA and during his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. the accused voluntarily pleaded guilty/admitted the incriminating material DD no. 49B State Vs. Ajay Singh Negi 2/5 appearing against him. In terms of the voluntarily admission of guilt of the accused/statement made by him during his examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. the following judgment is being passed.
5. In order to bring home the guilt against the accused prosecution examined three witnesses who corroborated each other on material particulars while proving the incident in question.
6. PW1 SI Nitin Kumar proved that 08.12.2012 he was posted at PS Sarita Vihar as Sub. Inspector and that on 07.12.2012 the accused was arrested in case FIR no. 225/12 P.S. Sarita Vihar from near his house in Ambedkar Nagar. He proved that during the investigation of that case FIR it came to his notice that there is an externment order qua him under the signature of Additional DCP, South East dated 31.05.2012 for one year i.e. Mark A and as the accused was arrested in the said case FIR within territorial limits of Delhi in violation of said externment order and he failed to justify his presence in Delhi he was arrested vide DD no. 49B i.e. Ex. PW1/A. He proved that a kalandara was prepared against the accused u/s 53/116 DP Act which is Ex. PW1/B and the accused was arrested in the said kalandra vide Ex. PW1/C. He proved that he obtained the copy of externment order, No. 455471 dated 31.05.2012 passed by then Additional DCP Sh. Parmod Kumar Mishra.
7. PW2 Constable Jai has duly proved the copy of proceedings u/s 47 DD no. 49B State Vs. Ajay Singh Negi 3/5 of Delhi Police Act/orders dated 31.05.2013 passed by Sh. Parmod Kumar Mishra, the then Additional DCP, South East Externment Cell.
8. PW3 Constable Umesh Kumar duly corroborated the testimony of PW1 SI Nitin Kumar. Hence the prosecution witnesses duly proved the presence and arrest of accused in/from Delhi despite externment orders dated 31.05.2012.
9. Testimony of prosecution witnesses remained unchallenged as none of them was cross examined by the accused/ Ld. Defence counsel despite opportunity given. I have no reasons to disbelieve their testimony. Furthermore today during his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused admitted the entire incriminating material as appearing against him while stating as under:
" It is correct that on 07.12.2012 I was apprehended by officials of PS Sarita Vihar. I knew about the externment proceedings against me but I had come to Delhi as my mother was seriously ill. I admit my mistake "
10. The above admissions/statements made by the accused are admissible in evidence against him in view of sub clause 4 of section 313 Cr.P.C. and the law laid in cases titled as Mohan Singh v. Prem Singh, (SC) 2002(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 842, Rattan Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (SC) 1997 A.I.R. (SC) 768, Sh. Mith kalitha V. State of Assam 2006 Cr.l.J. 2570, State of Rajasthan V. Ganesh Dass 1995 Cr.L.J. 25 (Raj.), Bishwas Prasad Sinha DD no. 49B State Vs. Ajay Singh Negi 4/5 V. State of Assam 2007 (1) Crimes 147 (SC), Anthoney Disuja V State of Karnataka AIR 2003 SC 258, State of H.P. V. Wazir Chand AIR 1978 SC 315 and they unambiguously prove that he was indeed found roaming in Dakshin Puri, New Delhi inspite of an externment order bearing no. 455471/Externment Cell/SED, New Delhi dated 31.05.2012 u/s 47 of Delhi Police Act.
11. Accordingly the accused stands convicted u/s 53/116 DP Act.
12. Let he be heard on the point of sentence separately.
Announced in the open (Gaurav Rao) Court on 24.09.2013 MM/SE/ New Delhi. DD no. 49B State Vs. Ajay Singh Negi 5/5 DD no. 49B U/s 53/116 DP Act. P.S. Sarita Vihar ORDER ON SENTENCE 24.09.2013 Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Convict Ajay Singh Negi is produced from JC.
His counsel Sh. R.K. Soran is also present.
Vide my separate judgment announced today accused has been convicted u/s 53/116 DP Act.
The learned defence counsel has submitted that convict is extremely poor and long drawn trial has financially drained him. It is submitted that he is the sole bread earner in the family and has a large family to look after it was also prayed the accused/convict be given benefit of section 360 Cr.P.C.
Per contra, learned APP has very vehemently argued that the act of the accused is unpardonable. It was submitted that the accused deserves no leniency least to release him on probation.
After giving my thoughtful considerations to the submissions made at bar I am of the considered opinion that taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, his age, his family responsibilities and to give him a chance to reform himself, it shall meet the ends of justice if benefit of section 428 DD no. 49B State Vs. Ajay Singh Negi 6/5 Cr.P.C. is given to the accused and he is sentenced to period already undergone in custody i.e. 08.12.2012 till date which comes around 9 months and 16 days for offfence u/s 53/116 DP Act.
Benefit of section 360 Cr.P.C. is not given to the accused so that it has deterrent effect upon him and he does not indulge in any other criminal activity.
A copy of this order be given to the convict free of cost.
Announced in the open court (Gaurav Rao) on 24.09.2013 MM/SE/Delhi DD no. 49B State Vs. Ajay Singh Negi 7/5 DD no. 49B U/s 53/116 DP Act. P.S. Sarita Vihar 24.09.2013 Present: Ld. APP for the State. Accused produced from JC.
Ld. Defence counsel Sh. R.K. Soran has been apprised of the fact that none of the prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. However Ld. Defence counsel as well as accused submit that they do not want to cross examine any of the witness.
His statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. has been recorded separately. Vide separate judgment announced in the open court today, accused Ajay Singh Negi has been convicted for offence u/s 53/116 DP Act and sentenced accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
(Gaurav Rao)
MM/SE/Delhi
24.09.2013
DD no. 49B State Vs. Ajay Singh Negi 8/5