Delhi District Court
State vs Raj Kumar on 20 August, 2008
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI : M.M. KARKARDOOMA
COURTS : DELHI
STATE V. RAJ KUMAR
FIR NO. 437/2007
P.S. NEW ASHOK NAGAR
U/S 9B OF THE EXPLOSIVE ACT AND U/S 286/336 IPC
JUDGMENT
a. The serial no. of the case : 78/08
b. Date of institution of the case : 15/3/08
c. The date of commission of the : 24/10/07
offence
d. The name of the complainant : SI Yogender Kumar
e. The name of the accused, his : Raj Kumar s/o Radhey Shyam
parentage and address r/o B2/62, New Kondli,
Delhi.
f. The offence complained of : U/S 9B Explosive Act and u/s 286/336
IPC
g. The plea of the accused : Pleaded guilty
h. The final orders : Convicted U/S 9B Explosive Act
i. Final argument heard : 20/8/08
j. Date of judgment reserved : 20/8/08
k. Date of pronouncement of : 20/8/08
judgment
A brief statement of the reasons for decision :
1. The prosecution case in brief is that on 24/10/07 at about 8.20 PM at B2/62, New Kondli, Delhi, accused was found in possession of explosives (Fire Works) weighing 214 Kgs. for the purpose of selling without licence in contravention of rules made U/S 5 of The Explosives Act, 1884 and rule 113 of The Explosives Rules, 1983 and thus he committed an offence punishable U/s 9 B of The Explosives Act, 1884, within the jurisdiction of police station New Ashok Nagar and within my cognizance. Accordingly, the charge sheet against the accused under section 9B Explosive Act and under section 286/336 IPC was filed after completion of investigation. The accused was supplied documents in terms of section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code (in short Cr. P.C.).
2. Argument on notice were heard on 20/8/08. Submissions of both the parties were considered. Prima facie a case under section 9 B of The Explosives Act, 1884 was found to be made out against the accused. Hence notice for the said offence was served upon accused. The accusation was read over and explained to accused to which he voluntarily pleaded guilty out of his own free will and consent and without any coercion, threat or undue influence from any corner. He pleaded his guilt after fully understanding the consequences of pleading guilty. I am satisfied that accused pleaded guilty voluntarily and without any coercion, threat or undue influence. Keeping in view the voluntarily plea of guilt made by accused, prosecution evidence was closed.
4. I have heard learned APP for State and counsel for accused and gone through the entire material available on record.
5. Keeping in view the voluntary plea of guilt made by accused and other material available on record, I am of the considered view that prosecution has proved its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused is convicted for the offence punishable under section 9 B of The Explosives Act, 1884. Judgment dictated and announced in the open court on this 20th day of August, 2008 (Raj Kumar Tripathi) Metropolitan Magistrate Karkardooma Courts: Delhi