Delhi District Court
State vs Laiq Ahmad Etc.-(2) on 14 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-08, SAKET COURTS, DELHI
Presided over by- Mr. Bhavaya Karhail, DJS
Cr. Case No. -: 87789/2016
FIR No. -: 533/2012
Police Station -: Jamia Nagar
Section(s) -: 411/174A IPC
In the matter of -
STATE
VS.
LAIQ AHMAD
Irshad Ahmed
R/o village Beram Nagar, PS Nahtor,
Distt. Bijnor, UP.
...Accused
1. Name of Complainant :- Anis Ahmed
2. Name of Accused Person :- 1. Irshad Ahmad
2. Laiq Ahmed (already
discharged)
3. Offence complained of or :- Section 411/174A IPC
proved
4. Plea of Accused Person :- NOT GUILTY
5. Date of Commission of :- 17.04.2013
offence
6. Date of Filing of case :- 13.06.2013
7. Date of Reserving Order :- Not reserved
8. Date of Pronouncement :- 14.07.2025
9. Final Order :- Acquittal u/s 411 IPC
Convicted u/s 174A IPC
BHAVAYA Digitally signed by
BHAVAYA KARHAIL
KARHAIL Date: 2025.07.14 16:57:38
+0530
FIR No. 533/2012 State v. Laiq Ahmed Page 1 of 5
JUDGMENT
1. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 17.04.2013, accused got recovered one motor cycle, make Hero Honda CD Delux bearing No. DL 3S BJ 9760, as per seizure memo which he had retained knowingly or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property and thereby committed offence u/s 411 IPC. On 23.01.2023, accused failed to appear before the court, despite issuance of proclamation for your appearance and thereby accused had committed an offence u/s 174A IPC.
2. After registration of the case, necessary investigation was carried out by the IO concerned. Site plan was prepared. Statement of witnesses were recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"). Relevant record was collected. Final report under section 173 CrPC, was prepared against the Accused person and challan was presented in the court u/s 411 IPC. After taking cognizance of the offence, the Accused person was summoned to face trial.
3. On his appearance, a copy of chargesheet was supplied to them in terms of section 207 of CrPC. Further, on finding a prima facie case against the Accused, charge under section 411/174A IPC was framed upon the Accused person on 01.07.2024 to which the Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. Vide order dt. 08.05.2017, both accused Laiq Ahmed and Irshad Ahmed were discharged by the predecessor of this court.
BHAVAYA Digitally signed by BHAVAYA
KARHAIL
KARHAIL Date: 2025.07.14 16:57:48
+0530
FIR No. 533/2012 State v. Laiq Ahmed Page 2 of 5
However, vod 17.09.2018, Ld. ASJ-02/SED while uphelding the order discharging Laiq Ahmed, set aside the order of discharge qua accused Irshad Ahmed. Accordingly, accused Irshad Ahmed was charged u/s 411 IPC. It is further to be noted that PW-1 Anees Ahmed was initially examined on 23.01.2023, however till then, no charge was framed against accused Irshad Ahmed as he was absconding. On 01.07.2024, charge u/s 411 IPC and 174A IPC was framed against accused Irshad Ahmed. However, despite numerous efforts, presence of complained Anees Ahmed could not be secured. It is pertinent to mention that complained Anees Ahmed had appeared with his counsel on 13.08.2024. Despite issuance of B/Ws, the complained remained untraceable and was subsequently dropped from the list of witness on 10.01.2025. Further, considering the lack of evidence, rest of the witnesses were also dropped.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
5. Since no incriminating evidence was on record, statement of Accused u/s 313 CrPC was dispensed with. Final arguments were heard.
ARGUMENTS AND ANALYSIS
6. I have heard the Ld. APP for the state and Ld. counsel for the Accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
7. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the state that there is sufficient material on record to convict the Accused for the said offences.
BHAVAYA Digitally signed by BHAVAYA
KARHAIL
KARHAIL Date: 2025.07.14 16:57:57
+0530
FIR No. 533/2012 State v. Laiq Ahmed Page 3 of 5
8. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the Accused has argued that the state has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.
9. As per the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 9 SCC 676; and Trimbak v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 39, for offence under section 411 IPC, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt, the following mandatory ingredients, viz.
i. That there was a stolen property;
ii. That the stolen property was in the possession of the Accused;
iii. That some person other than the Accused had possession of the property before the Accused got possession of it; and iv. That the Accused had knowledge that the property was stolen property.
10. Needless to mention, in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the Accused must be rebutted by the prosecution by reducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the Accused. The evidence in the present case is to be weighed keeping in view the above legal standards.
11. The case of the prosecution is that one stolen motor cycle bearing No. DL 3S BJ 9760 was recovered from the possession of accused Irshad Ahmed. The case of the prosecution BHAVAYA Digitally signed by BHAVAYA KARHAIL KARHAIL Date: 2025.07.14 16:58:03 +0530 FIR No. 533/2012 State v. Laiq Ahmed Page 4 of 5 was dependent entirely on the testimony of complainant who would ideally have identified the stolen motor cycle as his own. However, considering the non appearance of complainant, the prosecution has failed to establish the identity of the stolen article. Thus the prosecution has failed to connect the accused with the stolen motor cycle. The prosecution has thus failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, Accused Irshad Ahmed is acquitted u/s 411 IPC.
12. Vide separate statement of the even date, accused Irshad Ahmed has pleaded guilty to offence u/s 174A IPC for which he has been sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-. Fine has already been paid.
Announced in open court on 14.07.2025 in the presence of the Accused.
The judgment contains 05 pages and each page have been signed by the undersigned.
BHAVAYA Digitally signed by BHAVAYA KARHAIL KARHAIL Date: 2025.07.14 16:58:16 +0530 (BHAVAYA KARHAIL) JMFC-08, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi,14.07.2025 FIR No. 533/2012 State v. Laiq Ahmed Page 5 of 5