Delhi District Court
State vs . Avtar Singh @ Balley on 23 January, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SHRI NARESH KUMAR LAKA
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
FIR No.39/2001
PS Trilokpuri
State Vs. Avtar Singh @ Balley
(a) Sr. No. of the case 5108/2016 (new)
(b) Date of offence In the month of October 2000
(c) Complainant Sanjay Verma
(d) Accused, parentage and Avtar Singh @ Balley S/o Late Sh.
address Roop Singh R/o H. No. C230,
Pandav Nagar, Delhi.
(e) Offences complained for Section 406 IPC
(f) Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
(g) Final Order Acquitted
(h) Date of institution 11.11.2002
(i) Date when judgment was 18.01.2017
reserved
(j) Date of judgment 23.01.2017
J U D G M E N T
Brief Facts: Complainant, namely, Sanjay Verma approached
police on 19.12.2000 and gave his statement to the effect that his friend, namely, Avtar Singh @ Balley has taken his two wheeler scooter two months before and despite various demands, the same has not been given back. Accordingly, an FIR was registered for the offence under Section 406 IPC.
FIR No.39/2001 State Vs. Avtar Singh @ Balle Page No.1 of 6
2. After completion of investigation, the final report (charge sheet) for the offence under Section 406 IPC was filed against accused Avtar Singh @ Balley. Copy of the chargesheet was supplied to the accused as per Section 207 Cr.P.C.
3. On the basis of material on record, a charge was framed against the accused Avtar Singh @ Balle for the offence under Section 406 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The matter was put to trial and the prosecution examined total six witnesses as under:
PW1 Sanjay Verma, Complainant.
PW2 Maya Devi, public witness PW3 Shankar Bist, public witness PW4 ASI Ved Pal Singh, Duty Officer PW5 HC Ganga Ram PW6 ASI Vijay Dutt, IO
4. The statement of accused u/s 313 Cr. P.C was also recorded. Accused examined three witnesses, namely, HC Manoj Kumar (DWI), ASI Tomas K. A (DW2) and Avtar Singh as DW3 in his defence. I have heard arguments addressed by Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for accused. File perused.
REASONS FOR DECISION
5. The prosecution examined complainant Sanjay Verma as PW1 who reiterated the contents of the FIR and elaborated the details by saying that in October 2000, his friend, namely, Avtar Singh @ Balley took his FIR No.39/2001 State Vs. Avtar Singh @ Balle Page No.2 of 6 scooter bearing no. DL1SL7264 (Bajaj) which he had purchased the said scooter at the amount of Rs. 18,000/ from one Mohd. Kasim. PW1 Sanjay Verma further disclosed that accused did not return his scooter despite various requests and demands and consequently he made a complaint to the police which is Ex.PW1/A.
6. The prosecution also examined one more public witness i.e. PW 3 Shankar Bist who deposed that he does not remember the date and month but it was in the year 2000 and on day when he was present at the house of his friend Sanjay Verma, accused Avtar Singh @ Balley came and took his two wheeler and later on he came to know that the said scooter was not returned by the accused to the complainant. One more public witness, namely, Smt. Maya Devi (PW2) also deposed on the lines of PW3 Shankar Bist.
7. In the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, accused denied the testimonies of aforesaid three public witnesses and took a plea that he was falsely implicated in this case. He also examined himself and two other witnesses in his defence. Ld. Counsel for accused vehemently argued that the accused was falsely implicated in this case on account of business rivalries and there was a dispute on the point of payment of commission amount of deal of a vehicle.
8. Ld. Counsel for the accused pointed out that before registration of the present FIR, a complaint was also filed by complainant Sanjay Verma FIR No.39/2001 State Vs. Avtar Singh @ Balle Page No.3 of 6 to the concerned DCP on 18.11.2000. Even two officials from the office of DCP were examined as DW1 and DW2. Although they failed to prove the said compliant dated 18.11.2000 since the relevant record was old and weeded out yet they did not dispute the factum of filing of such complaint.
9. Besides the police officials (DW1 and DW2), the accused also examined himself as DW3 and his testimony is very material which is reproduced as under:
"I was doing the work of sale and purchase of moveable vehicles. The complainant Sanjay Verma was also doing the work of property dealer as well as sale and purchase of vehicles in his own shop. There was a dispute on the point of commission amount with regard to a sale of a car. I also used to sit with him and was having friendly relationship. I had cordial relation with his mother also and we were on visiting terms. The scooter of complainant Sanjay Verma was missing and accordingly he made a complaint to the DCP. The said complaint is already on record. The said complaint is mark X. For proving the said complaint, the concerned police officials were also summoned earlier and they disclosed that its record was already destroyed being old. I did not take the stolen property i.e., scooter.
There was also one HC Vijay Dutt who used to harass me unnecessary and in this regard I also made a complaint to the DCP. The copy of the same is on record. It bears my signature at point A and the same is Ex. DW3/A. On account of said complaint, he got annoyed and said that I would be falsely implicated in this case. I was arrested in this case at the instance of Vijay Dutt in collusion with mother of Sanjay Verma. My signatures were also taken on blank papers".
FIR No.39/2001 State Vs. Avtar Singh @ Balle Page No.4 of 6
10. From the aforesaid explanation/testimony of the accused, I am of the opinion that he deserves to be given benefit of doubt. Firstly, on account of the fact that the first complaint was made to the police by the complainant after two months of the alleged incident of taking away of the scooter by the accused which is highly improbable. The said fact of delay of two months also finds mention in the FIR also without any justified reason. Secondly, the accused also filed a copy of complaint on record which was filed by the complainant himself to the DCP dated 18.11.2000 (Mark X). In the said complaint, it was found mentioned that his scooter was missing on 08.10.2000. In the said complaint, there is no mention that the said scooter was taken away by accused Avtar Singh @ Balley. Thus it is doubtful whether the said scooter was entrusted to the accused or it was missing only. Since the prosecution failed to prove the first essential ingredient of "entrustment of a property", there is no need to discuss the second ingredient of misappropriation of said alleged property by the accused.
11. The accused also specifically pointed out that he had also made a complaint against one head constable, namely Vijay Dutt to the concerned DCP and as a result, he was penalized by transferring to District Lines. The accused claimed that the said head constable acted in collusion with complainant for registration of the present case. The said facts were deposed by the accused in his evidence also, which has been quoted above.
FIR No.39/2001 State Vs. Avtar Singh @ Balle Page No.5 of 6 Conclusion
12. In the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of the alleged offence beyond all reasonable doubts. Consequently, accused Avtar Singh @ Balle is acquitted for the offence under Section 406 IPC.
13. At the request of accused, his bail bonds are extended for a period of six months as per Section 437A Cr.P.C. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court (Naresh Kumar Laka) on 23.01.2017. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (East) Karkardooma Courts : Delhi FIR No.39/2001 State Vs. Avtar Singh @ Balle Page No.6 of 6