Delhi District Court
N. S. Rangi vs . C. Sekar on 4 April, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. NUPUR GUPTA, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE02,
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CC No. 20862/2016
N. S. Rangi Vs. C. Sekar
1. Case of the case 20862/2016
2. Name of the complainant Sh. N.S. Rangi,
Senior Intelligence Officer,
Directorate of Renvnue Intelligence,
New Delhi.
3. Name of the accused, C.Sekar,
S/o Sh. Chittambaram,
parentage & residential address
2/282, Thilagar Street,
M.A. Nagar, Redhills,
Chennai.
4. Offence complained of or U/s 174/175 IPC
proved
5. Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial
6. Final judgment/order Accquitted
Date of Institution : 21.03.2012
Date of Reserving Judgment/order : 11.03.2022
Date of Pronouncement of judgment/order : 04.04.2022
JUDGMENT
Brief statement of reasons for the decision of this case
1. Vide this judgment, this court shall dispose of complaint for offence punisable u/s 174/175 IPC filed by the complainant against the accused namely C. Sekar. The officer of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, CC No. 20862/2016 N. S. Rangi Vs. C.Sekar Page 1 of page 4 conducted an investigation of a case of illegal trade and fraudulent export of Red Sander wood, during enquiries the complainant issued summons u/s 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 to accused dated 13.01.2012 and 14.02.2012, but despite service accused failed to appear or did not submit any requisite document and thereby committed offence punishable u/s 174/175 IPC.
2. Copies were supplied to accused and on the basis of record, the accused was charged for commission of offences punishable under Section 174/175 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case, complainant examined himself as PW1 deposed that during the relevant period he was posted as Senior Intelligence Officer, DRI, DZU, New Delhi. In the present case, the enquiry conducting against the accused regarding the main case and in which he had issued summons u/s 108 Custom Act 1962. The summons dated 13.01.2012 issued by him and the same is Ex.PW1/A. He further deposed that this is a case of illegal trade and fraudulent export of Red Sander wood in which he had issued summons u/s 108 of Customs Act for enquiries. The summons dated 13.01.2012, Ex.PW1/A. He had also issued the summons in February 2012 to the accused. The said summons Ex.PW1/B. He further deposed that he had already also issued summons in December 2011 for his appearance of enquiries u/s 108 of the Custom Act. The said summons were not available on the judicial file. The accused did not appear for enquiries. Both the summons have been returned with remarks refused. Therefore, he had filed the complaint for noncompliance of summons. The said complaint is Ex.PW1/C. The return envelope on both the summons with the remarks are Mark A & B. He was crossexamined on behalf of the accused.
4. No other witness was examined by complainant in CE and thereafter the complianant evidence was closed.
CC No. 20862/2016 N. S. Rangi Vs. C.Sekar Page 2 of page 4
5. The incriminating evidence was put to the accused and his statement under section 313 CrPC r/w 281 CrPC was recorded wherein, he reiterated his entire defence taken at the notice stage. The accused does not lead defence evidence.
6. Final arguments from both the sides were heard. Record perused.
7. It is contended by Ld. SPP, DRI, that from the testimony of PW1, it is proved on record that summons u/s 108 Customs Act was issued to the accused, however, he has failed to appear before the authority and did not submit any requisite documents. Therefore, he is liable to be convicted u/s 174/175 IPC.
8. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for accused submits that DRI has failed to prove the case against accused beyond reasonable doubts. It is further stated that DRI has not even examined the dispatch clerk through whom alleged summons were issued upon the accused. Thus, accused may be acquitted.
9. Perusal of the record reveals that DRI has examined only one witness in evidence to prove the allegations that summons were duly served upon the accused, however, he failed to appear before the authority. In his cross examination witness has admitted that he did not sent the summons to the accused personally rather the same was sent through dispatch section.
He has also admitted that he has no knowledge whether summons were actually served upon the accused or who refused to receive the said summons. Thus, the best person to prove the service of summons and its dispatch was the dispatch clerk, however, despite repeated opportunities, the said witness was not examined for the reasons best known to the complainant. Thus, neither the complainant is able to prove the dispatch of summons nor the service of the same upon the accused. No witness apart CC No. 20862/2016 N. S. Rangi Vs. C.Sekar Page 3 of page 4 from CW1 has been examined to prove the said facts and testimony of CW 1 solely is insufficient to prove either of the above facts and consequently the basic ingredients of offences with which accused has been charged.
10. Thus, in view of the above facts and circumstances, accused C.Sekar is entitled to benefit of doubt and is thereby acquitted for the offences under Section 174/175 IPC.
Announced in the Open (NUPUR GUPTA)
Court on 04.04.2022 MM02/PHC/NDD/New Delhi
CC No. 20862/2016 N. S. Rangi Vs. C.Sekar Page 4 of page 4