Delhi District Court
State vs . R.N. Goyal Etc. on 20 January, 2007
Page No. 1
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRITAM SINGH : MM : DELHI :
State Vs. R.N. Goyal etc.
FIR no. : 47/1996
P.S. : Palam Air Port
U/s : 292/34 IPC
Appearance : APP for State
Accused on Bail
J U D G M E N T
(a) The Sr. no. of the case : 184/2
(b) The date of the commission : 12-12-1996
of offence.
(c) The name of complainant, : SI Sewa Ram,
if any. P.S. Palam Air port
New Delhi.
(d) The name of accused : (1) R.N. Goel S/o Sh. R.D. Goel
person. R/o 2/4971, Shiv Nagar,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
(2) Shri Jullian Goel S/o R.D. Goel
R/o 2/4971, Shiv Nagar,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
(e) The offence complained or : U/s 292/34 IPC
proved.
(f) The plea of accused and : Pleaded not guilty
his examination.
(g) The final order : Acquitted U/s 292/34 IPC
(h) The date of such order : 20-01-2007
Page No. 2
Brief statement of reasons for decision :-
1. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 12-12-1996 at about 8:05 p.m. at T.T. Shop Departure Hall terminal 1 both R,N. Goel and Jullian Goel ( hereinafter called accused no. 1 and 2 respectively ) were found selling obscene books to the public within the jurisdiction of P.S. Palam Air Port. Accordingly the FIR No. 47/96 was registered at P.S. Palam Air Port and after completion of investigation a challan u/s 292/34 IPC was filed against the accused persons in the court for their trial.
2. Charges were framed against accused persons U/s 292//34 IPC to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 5 witnesses. ACP Jai Pal Singh was examined as PW1, HC Rajender Singh was examined as PW2 who registered the Fir No. 47/1996, Shri Om Prakash was examined as PW3, SI Sewa Ram, IO was examined as PW4, ASI Nirmal Singh was examined as PW5. The letter regarding declaration of books by the examination committee as Obsence Books is Ex.PW1/A, Copy of FIR is Ex.PW2/A, Seizure memo of books is Ex.PW3/A, Rukka is Ex.PW4/A. Examination of accused persons U/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded separately.
4. Arguments heard. PW3, Om Prakash was shown as witness of recovery turned hostile and did nto support the story of prosecution by deposing that he did not know anything about the case. Nothing material came during his cross Page No. 3 examination by Ld. APP. PW4, SI Sewa Ram, was the IO and his deposition is very important. PW4 deposed that he got information from a secret informer that some one is selling Obscene books at the counter of Departure Hall Terminal I. Thereafter he ( PW4) alongwith Ct. Rakesh Kumar and HC Nirmal went to the shop which was running in the name of Nandi Export House Ltd. On checking PW4 recovered 16 books. PW4 further deposed that he seized these books vide Seizure memo Ex.PW3/A bearing his signature at point A in the presence of owner of counter Jullian Goel.
5. PW4 in his cross examination deposed Shri R.N. Goel, Shri Jullian Goel and Shri Om Prakash were present at the shop when police reached there. PW4 did not mentioned the name of R.N. Goel in his examination in chief that the books were seized in the presence of both the accused. PW4, IO also did not mention the name of R.N. Goel in the Rukka. Hence, there are contradictions in the deposition of PW4.
6. PW5 deposed that IO gave Rukka to him and he after getting the FIR registered handed over FIR and Rukka to IO an IO recorded his statement. But in his cross examination he deposed that IO recorded his statement at Police Station. PW4, IO, deposed that he did not seal the books. But PW5 deposed IO sealed the books in his presence. PW4 deposed that he (IO) seized the books first and thereafter prepared Rukka. PW5 deposed IO gave him Rukka and then seized the books.
Page No. 4
7. The above deposition of PW4 and PW5 are very contradictory to each other which creates doubt regarding the recovery of obscene book from the accused persons. On the otherhand deposition of PW3 further weakened the case of prosecution. It is also very important to mention that SI Sewa Ram got the information of selling of obscene books and he recovered the books and he is the complainant also. SI Sewa Ram was also deputed as IO and investigated the matter.
8. Ld. Counsel for the accused relied on AIR 1995 SUPREME COURT2339, titled "Megha Singh Versus State of Haryana", where it is held that "Head Constable arresting accused and recovering pistol and cartridges from him, Formal FIR lodged on his complaint, being complainant, he should not have proceeded with investigation of the case.
9. In view of the above discussions and relying on AIR 1995 SUPREME COURT2339, titled "Megha Singh Versus State of Haryana" I am of the considered view that prosecution has failed to prove its case. Hence, accused persons are acquitted. Bail Bonds are discharged. File be consigned to Record Room.
( PRITAM SINGH ) Announced in the open court Metropolitan Magistrate today i.e. 20.01.2007 Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.