Delhi District Court
State vs . Niyaz Khan & Anr. on 15 April, 2015
IN THE COURT OF Ms. CHETNA SINGH:METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-02
(SOUTH DISTRICT), SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
STATE Vs. Niyaz Khan & Anr.
FIR No.99/12
U/s : 457/380/411 IPC
P.S. : Malviya Nagar
Date of institution of case : 24.07.2013
Date on which case reserved for judgment : 15.04.2015
Date of judgment : 15.04.2015
JUDGMENT
1.FIR No. of the case : 99/12
2.Date of the Commission : 20.03.2012 to 21.03.2012
of the offence
3.Name of the accused : 1. Niyaz Khan @ Rasu
: 2. Barkat Ali @ Sona
: Both son of Late Sh. Faiyaz Ali R/o H.
: No. 268F/11, Kumhar Basti, Hauz
: Rani, New Delhi.
4.Name of the complainant : Sh. Garry Lakhan Pal S/o Sh. G.L. Pal
: R/o H. No. H-18/8, Malviya Nagar,
: New Delhi.
5.Offence complained of : u/s 457/380/411/34 IPC
6.Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7.Final order : Acquitted
FIR No. 99/12 State Vs Niyaz Khan & Anr. Pages 1/4
BRIEF FACTS
1. The story of the prosecution is that in between 20.03.12 to 21.03.2012 at unknown time at A-63, Shivalik, Malviya Nagar, ND, within the jurisdiction of PS Malviya Nagar, both accused persons namely Niyaz Khan and Barkat Ali had entered into the house of complainant namely Gairy Lakhan Pal and they both had stolen the articles regarding bathroom fittings (as per complaint) and they both got recovered stolen articles (as per seizure memo) from park near Metro Station of Malviya Nagar which they both retained knowingly or having reasons to believe the same to be stolen property and thereby committed offences punishable U/s 457/380/411/34 IPC.
2. On the basis of the said allegations and on the basis of the complaint of the complainant, an FIR bearing number 99/12 under section 457/380/411/34 IPC was lodged at Police Station Malviya Nagar.
3. After investigation, charge-sheet under section 173 Cr.P.C was filed on 24.07.2013.
4. On the basis of the charge-sheet, charge for the offences punishable under section 457/380/411/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons namely Niyaz Khan and Barkat Ali and read out to the said accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on 26.04.2014.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
5. To prove its case, prosecution has examined the following witnesses:
6. PW-1 Garry Lakhan Pal was examined on 27.03.2015 and FIR No. 99/12 State Vs Niyaz Khan & Anr. Pages 2/4 deposed that he was into real estate and construction business and around 3 years back he was constructing a site at A-63, Shivalik Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. On the said site, he had kept bathroom fittings material. Materials of make Kohlar Company. He further deposed that on 21.03.2012 when he checked for the said material, he found it missing. Thereafter, he called 100 number and police of PS Malviya Nagar reached at the spot and recorded his complaint which is Ex. PW1/A bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that he had mentioned description of total items which were missing from his abovesaid site. Police prepared the site plan. Later, police told him that they had recovered his stolen articles. He further deposed that he had not received any of articles on superdari. However, application for superdari Ex. PW1/B bears his signature at point A and superdari order was issued in his favour. However, he could identify the case property if shown to him. Thereafter, case property duly sealed with the seal of DS (partly visible) had been opened with the permission of the court and shown to him and he stated that none of the articles belonged to him.
7. This witness was cross examined by Ld. defence counsel wherein he stated that police recorded his statement on the next date of incident.
8. Apart from this witness, no other witness was examined by the prosecution as he has not identified the case property. Hence, no purpose would have been served in examining remaining witnesses. PE was ordered to be closed on 15.04.2015. The statement of accused under section 313 r/w section 281 Cr.P.C was dispensed with.
9. Final arguments were advanced by Ld. Counsel for accused. Heard. No arguments have been advanced by Ld. APP for State as he was not present and substitute APP had not been appearing.
FIR No. 99/12 State Vs Niyaz Khan & Anr. Pages 3/4 Reasons for Decision
10. Prosecution has examined only one witness in the present matter as twelve witnesses were cited in the list of witnesses. In the present matter, prosecution has examined the complainant/PW-1 Garry Lakhan Pal being material witness. However, he has not identified the case property. As the complainant has not identified the case property, hence, no purpose would have been served in examining remaining witnesses. PE stands closed. The SA was dispensed with. Thus, there is nothing on record to bring home the guilt of the accused persons u/s 457/380/411/34 IPC.
11. Hence, no grounds are found to hold the accused persons guilty of the offences as charged. The accused persons namely Niyaz Khan and Barkat Ali are hereby acquitted of the offences u/s 457/380/411/34 IPC.
Previous bail bond in compliance of section 437-A Cr.P.C. to remain in force for a period of 6 month from today. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the Court (CHETNA SINGH) on 15.04.2015 MM-02(SD)/15.04.2015
Certified that this judgment contains 4 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(CHETNA SINGH) MM-02(SD)/15.04.2015 FIR No. 99/12 State Vs Niyaz Khan & Anr. Pages 4/4