Delhi District Court
State vs Anees on 12 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-02, NORTH EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA
COURTS, DELHI PRESIDED BY: SH. ANMOL NOHRIA
STATE Vs. ANEES
FIR NO. : 342/2017, U/s 25/54/59 ARMS ACT
PS : SEELAMPUR
CNR NO. - DLNE020076872016
-: JUDGMENT :-
1.FIR No. 342/2017
2.Unique Case no. 2289/2017
3.Title State Vs. Anees
3(A).Name of complainant ASI Nathu Ram
3(B).Name of accused Anees S/o Khalil, R/o H. No.
T-579, Gali No. 16,
Gautampuri, Delhi.
3 (C). Representation on Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Ld. behalf of State APP for the State.
4.Date of institution of 11.10.2017 challan
5.Date of Reserving 07.02.2025 judgment
6.Date of pronouncement 12.03.2025
7.Date of commission of 05.07.2017 offence
8.Offence complained of 25/54/59 Arms Act 1959
9.Offence charged with 25 Arms Act 1959 Digitally ANMOL signed by 10.Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty NOHRIA ANMOL NOHRIA State vs Anees FIR No. 342/17 PS-Seelampur Page 1 of 26
11.Final order Acquitted u/S 25 Arms Act And Convicted u/S 174A IPC.
Brief Statement of Reasons for Decision of the Case
1. The present prosecution case was put into action with the complaint of the complainant ASI Nathu Ram wherein he has stated that he alongwith HC Vikram and Ct. Vikash were on patrolling duty at near Petrol Pump, GT Road, Shastri Park on 05.07.2017. At about 10:40 PM a secret informer met him and informed him that the accused is having illegal weapon and is standing near Kabristan, Shastri Park. He informed the same to the SHO and upon his instruction, he prepared a raiding party, reached at Kabristan, Shastri Park and apprehended the accused with the help of raiding party staff and on cursory search the accused was found in possession of one desi katta loaded with one live cartridge lying in right side dhub of his pant in contravention of section 3 of the Arms Act and has thereby committed offence punishable u/s 25 Arms Act, 1959 and within the cognizance of this Court.
2. On the basis of the complaint, FIR No. 342/2017, U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act was registered. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act.
Digitally signed ANMOL by 3. Cognizance was taken of offences u/S 25 Arms Act NOHRIA ANMOL NOHRIA State vs Anees FIR No. 342/17 PS-Seelampur Page 2 of 26 and thereafter, charge for the offence punishable u/s 25 Arms Act were framed against the accused Anees S/o Khalil on 13.11.2017 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter during the trial accused was declared a proclaimed person vide order dated 29.05.2023 and thereafter arrested and produced before the Court vide DD No. 001 dated 30.01.2024, PS-Crime Branch. Threafter, on 12.02.2024 chage for the offence punishable u/S 174A IPC was also framed against the accused to which accused also pleaded not gulity and claimed trial.
4. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt-:
ORAL EVIDENCE ASI Nathu Ram PW-1 :
(complainant) HC Sonu Yadav (police PW-2 :
witness)
PW-3 : HC Bikram (police witness)
PW-4 : HC Vikas (police witness)
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Rough sketch of desi katta
Ex. PW1/A :
and two live cartridge.
Seizure memo of case
Ex. PW1/A1 :
property
Digitally Ex. PW1/B : tehrir
ANMOL signed
by
NOHRIA ANMOL Disclosure statement of
Ex. PW2/A :
NOHRIA accused
State vs Anees FIR No. 342/17
PS-Seelampur Page 3 of 26
Ex. PW3/A : Arrest memo
Ex. PW3/B Personal search memo
CASE PROPERTY
Ex. P1 : Katta
Ex. P2 : Cartridge
ADMITTED DOCUMENTS
Ex. A1 : FIR
Ex. A2 : FSL Report
Ex. A3 : Sanction u/S 39 Arms Act
5. PE was closed on 04.12.2024 and on 14.01.2025 statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C read with Section 281 Cr.P.C wherein he denied the allegations in toto. He stated that he does not wish to lead DE and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
6. Final arguments were addressed by Ld APP for the state as well as LAC for the accused.
7. Ld. APP for the state submits that accused was caught red handed and he shall be convicted. Case property was also recovered from the accused at the spot. Whereas Ld. Counsel for the accused submits that there were no public witnesses to the scene of crime and hence accused shall be acquitted. Case property was planted upon the accused by the police officials.
Digitally signed ANMOL by NOHRIA ANMOL NOHRIA State vs Anees FIR No. 342/17 PS-Seelampur Page 4 of 26
8. I have heard the final arguments put forth by the Ld. APP for the state and by Ld. Defence Counsel. I have also perused the material available on record.
9. As per the case of prosecution, that on 05.07.2017 at about 11:00 AM Kabristan, Shastri Park within the jurisdiction of PS : Seelampur, accused was found unlawful possession of one loaded country made pistol loaded with one live cartridge as well as another live cartridge without any license or permit as required by the notification issued by Delhi Administration.
10. Before proceeding to the merits of the case, I wish to reiterate that in a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. An accused is presumed to be innocent, until proven guilty. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from the accused "may have" to accused "must have" committed the offence. With respect to offences pertaining to recovery of contraband items from the possession of accused, I find it pertinent to refer to the importance of joining a public witness to the investigation. If a public witness is not available, then the prosecution must show that sincere effort was made to ensure the presence of public witness to join the raiding party. Here I would like to refer to the observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Anoop Joshi Vs. State, 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), Digitally ANMOL signed by NOHRIA ANMOL NOHRIA State vs Anees FIR No. 342/17 PS-Seelampur Page 5 of 26 "It is repeatedly laid down by this court that in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evident that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shopkeepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC."
11. Additionally, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Pawan Kumar vs. Delhi Administration 1987 SCC OnLine Del 290 observed "....Here is a case where no effort was made to join any public witness even though number of them were present. No plausible explanation from the side of the prosecution is forthcoming for not joining the independent witnesses in a case of a serious nature like the present one. It may be that there is an apathy on the part of the general public Digitally to associate themselves with the Police ANMOL signed by raids or the recoveries but that apart, at NOHRIA ANMOL NOHRIA least the I.O. should have made an earnest effort to join the independent State vs Anees FIR No. 342/17 PS-Seelampur Page 6 of 26 witnesses. No attempt in this direction appears to have been made and this, by itself, is a circumstance throwing doubt on the arrest or the recovery of the knife from the person of the accused...."
12. The said position also find support from the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sahib Singh Vs State of Punjab wherein it was held that:
"Before conducting a search the police officer concerned is required to call upon some independent and respectable people of the locality to witness the search. In a given case it may so happen that no such person is available or, even if available, is not willing to be a party to such search. It may also be that after joining the search, such persons later on turn hostile. In any of these eventualities the evidence of the police officers who conducted the search cannot be disbelieved solely on the ground that no independent and respectable witness was examined to prove the search but if it is found -- as in the present case -- that no attempt was made even by the police officer concerned to join with him some persons of the locality who were Digitally admittedly available to witness the ANMOL signed NOHRIA by ANMOL recovery, it would affect the weight of NOHRIA evidence of the police officer, though not its admissibility."
13. Now proceeding upon the basis of aforesaid State vs Anees FIR No. 342/17 PS-Seelampur Page 7 of 26 principles of law, I shall render my finding against the accused qua the offence. Onus is on the prosecution to prove:
i. Recovery of one loaded country made pistol loaded with one live cartridge as well as another live cartridge from the accused.
ii. Accused was in conscious possession said country made pistol.
14. The present case was registered on the basis of complaint by ASI Nathu Ram wherein he has stated that he alongwith HC Vikram and Ct. Vikash were on patrolling duty at near Petrol Pump, GT Road, Shastri Park on 05.07.2017. At about 10:40 PM a secret informer met him and informed him that the accused is having illegal weapon and is standing near Kabristan, Shastri Park. He informed the same to the SHO and upon his instruction, he prepared a raiding party, reached at Kabristan, Shastri Park and apprehended the accused with the help of raiding party staff and on cursory search the accused was found in possession of one desi katta loaded with one live cartridge lying in right side dhub of his pant. Hence, PW1, PW3 and PW4 are the star witnesses of the prosecution and their testimonies require careful scrutiny.
Digitally 15. It is well settled principle of the law that the ANMOL signed NOHRIA by ANMOL investigating agency should join independent witnesses at the NOHRIA State vs Anees FIR No. 342/17 PS-Seelampur Page 8 of 26 time of recovery of contraband articles, if they are available and their failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. It has been stated by PW1, PW3 & PW4 that efforts were made by PW1 for joining public witnesses before conducting the raid apprehending the accused, however, all the public persons refused to join the police party and no list of such persons was prepared by PW1. Perusal of the FIR/tehrir shows that same mentions that the efforts were made, however, in the absence of any such list of persons or written notice being issued to them by PW1, the same seems to be an afterthought to fill the lacuna while preparing the documents and the explanation does not seem plausible. It is a very common excuse that the witnesses from the public refused to join the investigation. A police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public the investigating officer can take action against such a person. No notice in writing was given to them to join the investigation. No action was taken qua the persons who refused to disclose their names or addresses. It is also not in dispute that where secret information was received by the police party is a public place and there are lot of public offices/shops nearby. If the first few people did not join the investigation, other people could have been requested. But no sincere efforts were made to make a public person to join the investigation. A public witness would have been an important link in the chain of circumstances Digitally signed to support the prosecution version. The failure to do so by the ANMOL by NOHRIA ANMOL NOHRIA State vs Anees FIR No. 342/17 PS-Seelampur Page 9 of 26 police officer is suggestive of the fact that the explanation for non-joining the witnesses from the public is an afterthought and is not worthy of credence.
16. In the case of Chanan Singh Vs. State 1986 Crl. Rev. No.720 (P&H) 94, it was held that it was obligatory on the part of the police to join independent witnesses and the statement of official witness that witnesses refused to join investigation was rejected as an afterthought.
17. It is well settled proposition that non-joining of public witness shrouds doubt over the fairness of the investigation by police. Even Section 100 (4) Cr.P.C. casts statutory duty upon the official conducting search to join two respectable persons of the society, which is not done in the present case. In the case of Pawan Kumar Vs. The Delhi Administration, 1989 Crl LJ 127 Delhi, it has been held as under:-
"Admittedly, there is no impediment in believing the version of the police officials but for that the prosecution has to lay a good foundation. At least one of them should have deposed that they tried to contact the public witnesses or that they refused to join Digitally the investigation. Here is a case where ANMOL signed NOHRIA by no effort was made to join any public ANMOL NOHRIA witness even though number of them were present. No plausible explanation State vs Anees FIR No. 342/17 PS-Seelampur Page 10 of 26 from the side of the prosecution is forthcoming for not joining the independent witnesses. It may be that there is an apathy on the part of the general public to associate themselves with the police raids or the recoveries but that apart, at least the IO should have made an earnest effort to join the independent witnesses. No attempt in this direction appears to have been made and this, by itself, is a circumstance throwing doubt on the arrest or the recovery of the knife from the person of the accused."
18. Further scrutiny of testimonies of PW1, PW3 & PW4 shows that nothing has been stated by them that they offered their personal search before conducting the search of the accused. Further, none of the prosecution witnesses have deposed in their examination in chief that they offered their personal search to the accused before inspecting the accused. Principles of natural justice demand that accused should have been offered their personal search by the recovery witness and this fact should have been reduced into writing. This fact is another missing link in the prosecution's case.
19. It is also pertinent to note that though PWs have deposed that the seal was handed over by PW1 to PW3 in their examination in chief, however, there is no handing over memo of Digitally the seal was prepared as per the record. Thereafter, the possibility ANMOL signed NOHRIA by ANMOL NOHRIA State vs Anees FIR No. 342/17 PS-Seelampur Page 11 of 26 of tampering with the case property cannot be ruled out.
20. Further, as per the deposition of PW3 has deposed that disclosure statement was recorded by the IO at the spot in his presence, however, the same is in contradiction to the statement of PW2 who has stated that IO had brought the accused to the PS and he was present there and disclosure was recorded in his presence. This clearly shows that there is a contradiction between the versions of PW2 and PW3 as to the recording of the disclosure statement which could have only been cured by the IO, however, the IO has not been examined as he has expired. Thus, doubt is cast upon the version of PW3 in the present matter.
21. Lastly, no DD entry has been placed on record by prosecution to show that PW1, PW3 & PW4 were on patrolling duty on 05.07.2017 at G. T. Road, Shastri Park at about 10:40 PM. No DD writer has been examined or made a witness. It is an important missing link in the version of prosecution. As per chapter 22 rule 49 of the Punjab Police Rules, which is reproduced as under:
"Chapter 22 rule 49 Matters to be entered in Register no. II. The following matters shall amongst others, be entered: -
Digitally (c) The hour of arrival and departure signed ANMOL by on duty at or from a police station of NOHRIA ANMOL NOHRIA all enrolled police officers of State vs Anees FIR No. 342/17 PS-Seelampur Page 12 of 26 whatever rank, whether posted at the police station or elsewhere, with a statement of the nature of their duty. This entry shall be made immediately on arrival or prior to the departure of the officer concerned and shall be attested by the latter personally by signature or seal.
Note: - The term Police Station will include all places such as Police Lines and Police Posts where Register No.II is maintained."
22. In Rattan Lal Vs. State 1987 (2) Crimes 29 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that:
"if the investigating agency deliberately ignores to comply with the provisions of the Act the Courts will have to approach their action with reservations. The matter has to be viewed with suspicion if the provisions of law are not strictly complied with and the least that can be said is that it is so done with an oblique motive. This failure to bring on record, the DD entries creates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution version and attributes oblique motive on the part of the prosecution."
23. In a criminal trial, the burden on the prosecution is beyond reasonable doubt. The reasonable doubt is a rule of caution laid down by the Courts of Law in respect of assessing the evidence in criminal cases. In Awadhi Yadav v. State of Digitally ANMOL signed NOHRIA by ANMOL NOHRIA State vs Anees FIR No. 342/17 PS-Seelampur Page 13 of 26 Bihar, (1971) 3 SCC 116 at page 117, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that:
"Before a person can be convicted on the strength of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances in question must be satisfactorily established and the proved circumstances must bring home the offence to the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If those circumstances or some of them can be explained by any other reasonable hypothesis then the accused must have the benefit of that hypothesis. But in assessing the evidence imaginary possibilities have no place. What is to be considered are ordinary human probabilities."
24. In State of Haryana v. Bhagirath, (1999) 5 SCC 96 :
1999 SCC (Cri) 658 : 1999 SCC OnLine SC 577 at page 99 Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that:
"But the principle of benefit of doubt belongs exclusively to criminal jurisprudence. The pristine doctrine of benefit of doubt can be invoked when there is reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused. It is the reasonable doubt which a conscientious judicial mind entertains on a conspectus of the Digitally entire evidence that the accused might ANMOL signed not have committed the offence, which NOHRIA by affords the benefit to the accused at the ANMOL NOHRIA end of the criminal trial. Benefit of State vs Anees FIR No. 342/17 PS-Seelampur Page 14 of 26 doubt is not a legal dosage to be administered at every segment of the evidence, but an advantage to be afforded to the accused at the final end after consideration of the entire evidence, if the Judge conscientiously and reasonably entertains doubt regarding the guilt of the accused. It is nearly impossible in any criminal trial to prove all the elements with a scientific precision. A criminal court could be convinced of the guilt only beyond the range of a reasonable doubt. Of course, the expression "reasonable doubt" is incapable of definition. Modern thinking is in favour of the view that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the same as proof which affords moral certainty to the Judge."
25. Francis Wharton, a celebrated writer on criminal law in the United States has quoted from judicial pronouncements in his book Wharton's Criminal Evidence (at p. 31, Vol. 1 of the 12th Edn.) as follows:
"It is difficult to define the phrase 'reasonable doubt'. However, in all criminal cases a careful explanation of the term ought to be given. A definition often quoted or followed is that given by Chief Justice Shaw in the Webster case. He says: 'It is not mere possible doubt, because everything relating to Digitally human affairs and depending upon ANMOL signed moral evidence is open to some possible NOHRIA by ANMOL or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the NOHRIA case which, after the entire comparison State vs Anees FIR No. 342/17 PS-Seelampur Page 15 of 26 and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in that consideration that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction to a moral certainty of the truth of the charge."
26. In the treatise The Law of Criminal Evidence authored by H.C. Underhill it is stated (at p. 34, Vol. 1 of the 5th Edn.) thus:
"The doubt to be reasonable must be such a one as an honest, sensible and fair-minded man might, with reason, entertain consistent with a conscientious desire to ascertain the truth. An honestly entertained doubt of guilt is a reasonable doubt. A vague conjecture or an inference of the possibility of the innocence of the accused is not a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is one which arises from a consideration of all the evidence in a fair and reasonable way. There must be a candid consideration of all the evidence and if, after this candid consideration is had by the jurors, there remains in the minds a conviction of the guilt of the accused, then there is no room for a reasonable doubt."
27. Hence, testimony of PW1, PW3 and PW4 are insufficient to prove the recovery of desi katta and two live cartridges from the accused as a dent is cast upon the version put forward by them in view of the above discussion. Considering Digitally ANMOL signed NOHRIA by ANMOL NOHRIA State vs Anees FIR No. 342/17 PS-Seelampur Page 16 of 26 the aforesaid infirmities and inconsistencies in the prosecution version, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove the recovery of desi katta and two live cartridges from the accused on 05.07.2017 at about 11:00 PM from Kabristan, Shastri Park. Hence, question whether the accused was in conscious possession of said desi katta and two live cartridges in contravention of Section 3 of the Arms Act does not arise. Benefit of doubt must go in favour of accused. It is cardinal principle of criminal law that accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. In view of material inconsistencies in the prosecution version as discussed above, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under section 25 Arms Act.
28. Accused Anees has also been charged with offence punishable under section 174A IPC.
29. Section 174A of the Penal Code, 1860 reads as under:
"174A. Non-appearance in response to a proclamation under section 82 of Act 2 of 1974.--Whoever fails to appear at the specified place and the specified time as required by a proclamation published under sub-section (1) of section 82 of the Code of Digitally Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall be punished ANMOL signed with imprisonment for a term which may NOHRIA by extend to three years or with fine or with ANMOL NOHRIA both, and where a declaration has been State vs Anees FIR No. 342/17 PS-Seelampur Page 17 of 26 made under sub-section (4) of that section pronouncing him as a proclaimed offender, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine."
30. Section 174A IPC is divided into two parts. First part deals with the situation where the proclamation is issued under Section 82(1) Cr.P.C. and when the accused failed to appear despite its publication, he is to undergo imprisonment upto three years or with fine or with both. The second part of Section 174A relates to the declaration issued by the Court under Section 82(4) Cr.P.C. wherein serious offences have been prescribed and despite declaring a person as proclaimed offender, when he fails to appear, the punishment provided is imprisonment upto seven years and payment of fine.
31. An argument was raised by Ld. Counsel for accused that Section 195 Cr.P.C. clearly barred the Court from taking cognizance of any offences punishable under Sections 172 to 188 IPC. Provision of Section 195 Cr.P.C. is mandatory and the Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of any offence mentioned therein unless there is a complaint in writing by the public servant.
32. In Maneesh Goomer vs. State, 2012(1)JCC 465 (Crl.M.C. 4208/2011) decided on 04.01.2012 Hon'ble Delhi Digitally signed ANMOL by NOHRIA ANMOL NOHRIA State vs Anees FIR No. 342/17 PS-Seelampur Page 18 of 26 High Court has categorically held that Section 195 Cr.P.C. has not been correspondingly amended so as to include Section 174A IPC which was brought into the Penal Code with effect from 23.06.2006.
33. Section 174A IPC was introduced in the Code with effect from 23.06.2006 and Section 195A Cr.P.C. which provides that no Court shall take cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 172 to 188 IPC (Both inclusive) or of the abetment of committing the offence, except by complaint in writing by the public servant or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate, was a part of the Criminal Procedure Code since 1974 when the new Criminal Procedure Code came into force. No corresponding amendment was brought into Section 195 (1) (a) in the year 2006 when a new offence, by adding Section 174A was introduced in Indian Penal Code. By no stretch of imagination, it can be inferred or presumed that Section 174A would be deemed to be included in between Section 172 to Section 188 IPC.
34. The Court in Maneesh Goomer (supra) held :
Digitally signed "....it may be noted that Section 174-A IPC ANMOL by NOHRIA ANMOL was introduced in the Code with effect NOHRIA from 23rd June, 2006. Section 195(1) State vs Anees FIR No. 342/17 PS-Seelampur Page 19 of 26 Cr.P.C. provides that no Court shall take cognizance of offences punishable under Section 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the IPC or of the abatement, or attempt to commit the said offences, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. Section 195 Cr.P.C. has not been correspondingly amended so as to include Section 174-A IPC which was brought into the Penal Code with effect from 23rd June, 2006. The Legislature was conscious of this fact and that is why though all other offences under chapter X of the Criminal Procedure Code are non cognizable, offence punishable under Section 174-A IPC is cognizable. Thus the Police officer on a complaint under Section 174-A IPC is competent to register FIR and after investigation thereon file a charge-sheet before the Court of Magistrate who can take cognizance thereon. Thus, I find no merit in the contention raised by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. "
35. In Moti Singh Sikarwar vs. State of U.P. and Ors, MANU/UP/2481/2016, decided on 29.11.2016 by the High Court of Allahabad it has been observed that bar created by Section 195(1) (a) Cr.P.C. would not apply to the provisions of section 174AIPC. It held:
Digitally "21. The reasons are as follows:
signed ANMOL by NOHRIA ANMOL NOHRIA State vs Anees FIR No. 342/17 PS-Seelampur Page 20 of 26 "1. It is to be noted that all the offences under Section 172 to 188 I.P.C. (both inclusive) are non-cognizable and bailable, whereas Section 174-A I.P.C. which provides for punishment upto 7 years imprisonment and fine, in case the offender fails to appear at the specified place and the specified time, as required by the proclamation published under Section 82 Cr.P.C., is cognizable and non-bailable. The legislature was conscious of this fact and that is why while introducing Section 174-
A in the I.P.C. in the year 2006, it made no corresponding amendment in Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C. so as to include Section 174-A I.P.C. in between all the non- cognizable offences and bailable from Sections 172 to 188 I.P.C.
2. It cannot be said that due to inadvertence, the corresponding amendment in Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C., was left to be made by the legislature. It is noteworthy that Section 195 has been correspondingly amended in the year 2006, by amending the exception clause of it. Had there been any intention on the part of the legislature to include Section 174-A I.P.C. in Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C. it would have definitely correspondingly amended Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C. also.
3.Section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure provides for information in Digitally cognizable cases and the concept of "locus ANMOL signed standi" has been completely washed off by NOHRIA by ANMOL NOHRIA this section, as any person can set the law into motion, in case any cognizable offence is noticed by him, by registering a first State vs Anees FIR No. 342/17 PS-Seelampur Page 21 of 26 information report. The public interest demands that criminal justice should be swift and sure and the court should not let the guilty scot free only on the basis of mere some technicalities. Section 460 Cr.P.C. is also based on the same principle.
4. The basic principle of law is that one, who seeks equity should do equity. In other words the persons, who seeks equitable reliefs, should come before the court with clean hands. The accused has no right to choose the mode by which he is to be prosecuted specially in the circumstances when he has failed to comply with the orders of the court and is prolonging the matter by filing one case after another.
5. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Maneesh Goomer's case (supra) has held that Section 195 Cr.P.C. has not been correspondingly amended so as to include section 174-A I.P.C., which was brought into the Penal Code with effect from 23rd June 2006 and there is no reason to deviate with the view of Hon'ble Delhi High Court."
22. In view of the above discussion, this court is of the considered view that the bar Digitally of Section 195 (1)(a) Cr.P.C. is not ANMOL signed applicable to the present case and a private by NOHRIA ANMOL person is competent to lodge a complaint or NOHRIA even an F.I.R. under Section 174-A I.P.C."
36. In A. Krishna Reddy v. CBI 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7266 : (2017) 3 DLT (Cri) 391, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in State vs Anees FIR No. 342/17 PS-Seelampur Page 22 of 26 para 29 has observed that:
"No separate investigation is required to be conducted as the orders of the Court declaring the petitioner to be Proclaimed Offender are part of the record in the main challan. Object and purpose to incorporate Section 174A IPC primarily is to ensure that the accused / suspects do not scuttle investigation or trial by remaining absconding without valid or sufficient reasons. In such a scenario, when the suspects or accused abscond, possibility of valuable evidence to be washed away cannot be ruled out."
37. In State vs. Proclaimed Offenders of Delhi and others, Crl.No.2021/2010, decided on 11.08.2010, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that supplementary charge-sheet under Section 174A IPC can be filed or the offence under Section 174A IPC can be added in the main charge-sheet. Apparently, no fresh investigation was required to be carried out.
38. In Sunil Tyagi vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Another CRL.M.C. 4438/2013 & CRL.M.A. 15894/2013 , Hon'ble Delhi High Court has observed that:
"21. The legislature by enacting Section 174A IPC has further penalised the non- appearance of a proclaimed offender. The very basis of fair trial is threatened if an Digitally accused/suspect is declared as a proclaimed ANMOL signed offender without proper service, or if NOHRIA by ANMOL proclamations and non-bailable warrants NOHRIA State vs Anees FIR No. 342/17 PS-Seelampur Page 23 of 26 are issued in a routine manner.
22. The legislature seeing the growing number of Proclaimed offenders inserted Section 174A IPC by way of Clause 44 of the CrPC. (Amendment) Act, 2005 (25 of 2005) which was brought into force w.e.f.
23rd June, 2006 vide Notification No. SO 923(E) dated 21st June, 2006, hoping that it would be a deterrent for persons fleeing from justice.
23. Section 174A IPC penalizes the non- appearance of a person as required by a proclamation published under. In case of non- appearance consequent to a proclamation under Section 82(1) of the Code for a term up to three years/fine/both and in case of a declaration under Section 82(4) of the Code (in respect of offences under Sections 302, 304, 364, 367, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 402, 436, 449, 459 or 460 of the IPC for a term upto seven years with fine. Since non-appearance of accused in response to the proclamation under Section 82 CrPC has been made a substantive offence, the provisions of Section 174A IPC are required to be invoked against absconding accused. When the accused fails to appear before the court in response to the proclamation issued under Section 82(1) CrPC, within the period of 30 days from the date of proclamation, or fails to Digitally appear at the specified place and time ANMOL signed required by the proclamation issued under by NOHRIA ANMOL Section 82(4) CrPC, he is punishable with NOHRIA imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both and imprisonment for a term which may extend State vs Anees FIR No. 342/17 PS-Seelampur Page 24 of 26 to seven years or with fine or both, respectively."
39. Section 174A of the Penal Code, 1860 reads as under:
"174A. Non-appearance in response to a proclamation under section 82 of Act 2 of 1974.--Whoever fails to appear at the specified place and the specified time as required by a proclamation published under sub-section (1) of section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both, and where a declaration has been made under sub-section (4) of that section pronouncing him as a proclaimed offender, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine."
40. In the present case, proclamation under section 82 Cr. P.C. was issued against accused Anees on 23.12.2021 directing him to appear before this Court. He failed to appear within the stipulated period of 30 days. Ld. Predecessor of this Court recorded statement of process server HC Ramesh who had executed process under section 82 Cr. PC against accused Anees and declared accused Anis a proclaimed person vide order dated 29.05.2023. Therefore, process under S. 82 Cr. P. C. was duly Digitally executed against accused Anees as per the procedure laid in the signed ANMOL by NOHRIA ANMOL NOHRIA State vs Anees FIR No. 342/17 PS-Seelampur Page 25 of 26 section itself including publication and public announcement, despite that he failed to appear.
41. Thus, in view of the above discussion, accused Anees is found guilty for offence punishable under section 174A IPC in the present case and resultantly, he stands convicted in the present case. Let the convicts be heard separately on quantum of sentence.
42. Thus, in view of the above discussion, the prosecution has not been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that accused Anees has committed offence punishable under section 25 Arms Act. Therefore, he is found not guilty in the present case for the above mentioned offence and resultantly, he stands acquitted in the present case for the above mentioned offences. Accused Anees has been convicted for offence punishable under section 174A IPC.
Digitally ANMOL signed by NOHRIA ANMOL NOHRIA Announced in the open (ANMOL NOHRIA) Court on 12th March 2025 JMFC-02/NE/KKD COURTS State vs Anees FIR No. 342/17 PS-Seelampur Page 26 of 26