Delhi District Court
State vs Ajay Kumar Jain on 13 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANKIT GARG LD. JMFC-08 PATIALA
HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CrC No. 5807/2020
State vs. Ajay Kumar Jain
FIR no. 64/2018
PS Delhi Cantt.
JUDGMENT
Date of the Commission of offence 18.07.2017 Date of Institution of the case 01.10.2020 Date of reserving the judgment 07.12.2024 Date of pronouncement of judgment 13.12.2024 Name of the Complainant Sh. Sumeet Anand R/o MM NI Act PHC, New Delhi.
Name of Accused, their Parentage Sh. Ajay Kumar S/o Sh.
Suresh Kumar JainR/o house no D-801, Swami Dayanand Apartment Plot no. 5, Sector6, Dwarka Delhi.
Offences complained of or proved 174A IPC Plea of accused Plead not guilty Final order Convicted Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT GARG GARG Date: 2024.12.16 16:34:27 +0530
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
1. Briefly stated, the allegations of the prosecution are that accused in the present case had failed to appear before Court of Ld. MM NI Act despite the order of Court and process u/s 82 Cr PC was issued against accused and the same was duly executed by the process server and thereby accused was declared as an absconder by order of the above said Court on 18.07.2017 and thereby committed the offence u/s 174-A IPC.
INVESTIGATION AND NOTICE
2. Investigation was conducted into the allegations. Upon completion thereof, charge sheet was filed. Accused was summoned. Compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C was done by providing copy of the charge sheet and annexed documents to the accused.
3. Upon finding a prima facie case against the accused persons, a formal charge for the offence punishable U/s 174A IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. On 11.08.2023 statement of accused recorded u/s 294 Cr.P.C. in which accused admitted order dated 26.07.2014 which is Mark 1 and the abovesaid witness was dropped from the list of witnesses.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. In order to substantiate the allegations, six witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution.
Digitally
signed by
ANKIT ANKIT GARG
Date:
GARG 2024.12.16
16:34:31
+0530
5.1 PW1 Ms. Monika appeared before the court and his deposition
is reproduced as under:
The accused is a friend of my husband. The accused had asked for some friendly loan was he was in dire need of that. We had given loan of Rs. 16.5 lakhs to the accused by way of RTGS and cheque in the year 2013. He had promised that he will repay the amount within six months. Thereafter, he had issued a cheque which was bounced. Thereafter, we had filed a case against him u/s 138 NI Act and accused was not attending the court proceedings. I am the complainant in CC No. 28441/2016. The accused in that case is Ajay Kumar Jain who is also accused in the present case. The case was pending in the Court of Sh. Sumeet Anand, Ld. MM NI Act PHC. New Delhi and in that case the accused was declared PO vide order dt. 26.07.2017.
At this stage, witness has correctly identified the accused who is present in the Court today.
XXX by Sh. Kuldeep Singh, Counsel for the accused. It is correct that the amount of Rs.15,50,000/- approximately has been received by me through bank. It is wrong to suggest that accused is not residing at the given address from February, 2014. I do not know whether my husband used to visit the office and residence of the accused or not. Accused used to visit my house. I do not have any knowledge regarding any case filed by Koshda Buildcon against the accused at Mathura. I do not know whether any complaint had been filed by my husband or not. It is wrong to suggest that accused is not residing at the addresses mentioned u/s 138 NI Act from February, 2014. I never visited the house and office of the accused. It Digitally signed ANKIT byGARG ANKIT Date:
GARG 2024.12.16 16:34:36 +0530 is wrong to suggest that I had visited the house and office of the accused as mentioned in my complaint u/s 138 NI Act. It is wrong to suggest that I was aware of the fact that accused had left the addresses mentioned in my complaint u/s 138 NI Act in the month of February, 2014. I do not know whether the accused was in custody from July, 2020 and got bail in September, 2020. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
5.2 PW2 Ct. Sanjeev appeared before the court and his deposition is reproduced as under:
That on 29.07.2020, I was posted as Constable in PS Delhi Cantt. On that day, I was on duty with ASI Ram Raj. On that day, the accused was arrested in Tihar Jail complex vide arrest memo which is now exhibited as Ex.PW2/A bearing my endorsement at point A. At this stage, witness has correctly identified the accused who is present in the Court today.
XXX by Sh. Kuldeep Singh, Counsel for the accused. Nil (opportunity given).
5.3 PW3 ASI Krishan Kumar appeared before the court and his deposition is reproduced as under:
That on 07.04.2018, I was posted as ASI in Police Station Delhi Cantt. On that day, the present FIR was handed over to me for further investigation. I had searched for the accused Ajay Kumar Jain but he was not traceable. A notice u/s 166 CrPC has been pasted at his home i.e. Flat No. 3 and 4, 9th Floor, Himalaya Residency, Dwarka and on other adress at A70/1, III floor, Madhu Vihar. He was not traceable after that also. Thereafter, NBW was issued against him. Thereafter, ANKIT GARG Digitally signed by ANKIT GARG Date: 2024.12.16 16:34:40 +0530 proceedings u/s 82 CrPC was initiated against the accused and the same has been published in newspaper. The publication order is now exhibited as Ex.PW3/A bearing my signature at point A. Thereafter, I got transferred and the file was handed over to MHC(R) XXX by sh. Kuldip Singh, Counsel for the accused.
I had made the entry in the case diary regarding the search of accused made by me. I had made the entries in the case diary regarding the investigation carried out by me in search of the accused. I had not recorded the statement of parents of the accused as the same was not given by them. It is wrong to suggest that I had not visited the house of the accused and that is why no statement was recorded. No neighbour had been residing near the address of the accused at Dwarka. I did not record the statement of the neighbours of the accused at Madhu Vihar. It is wrong to suggest that I had never visited the Madhu Vihar address and that is why no statement of any neighbour was recorded. I had also not recorded the statement of the property dealer of Madhu Vihar area. I do not remember the dates on which I visited Himayal Residency Dwarka and Madhu Vihar area. It is wrong to suggest that I never visited Himayal Residency Dwarka and Madhu Vihar area pertaining to the present case. I visited 4-5 times at Dwarka address and 2 times Madhu Vihar address of the accused. I had mentioned this fact of my visits at Dwarka and Madhu Vihar address in the case diary. I do not remember the date on which I came to know that a different case is pending against accused in Patiala House Court. I was not aware whether the accused was in judicial custody during my investigation. It is wrong to suggest that I had not carried out the investigation in fair and proper manner. I do ANKIT GARG Digitally signed by ANKIT GARG Date: 2024.12.16 16:34:44 +0530 not remember the date when I recorded the statement of Monika Jain and Virender Jain.
5.4 PW4 SI Tarsem Lal appeared before the court and his deposition is reproduced as under:
As per the order of the Court dated 18.07.2017, on 06.04.2018, SI Munna Kumar no. D-5380 had handed over the investigation of present matter registered u/s. 174-A IPC against the accused. Address of the accused was 2/21, Kabul Line, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. Therefore, I had requested that the investigation of the present case be handed over to the concerned division officer of the said area. Thereafter the investigation of the present case was handed over to the concerned police official.
XXXXX by Shri Kuldip Singh, Counsel for the accused.
I had verified the address of the accused as mentioned in the said order by personally visiting the same. The said address was found locked. I did not inquire from the neighbours as to who was residing at the said address. It is wrong to suggest that I did not visit the said address nor accused was ever residing there. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
5.5 PW5 ASI Ram Raj Meena appeared before the court and his deposition is reproduced as under:
On 29.07.2020, I was posted as ASI at PS Delhi Cantt. and case file was entrusted to me for further investigation on the same day by the order of the concerned SHO. On the same date, the accused was formally arrested from Tihar Jail Complex, vide arrest memo already Ex.PW2/A, bearing my signatures at point B and produced before the ANKIT Digitally signed by ANKIT GARG GARG 16:34:51 +0530 Date: 2024.12.16 concerned Ld. Duty MM at Tihar Jail itself. I have also recorded disclosure statement of the accused vide memo Ex.PW5/A bearing my signatures at point A. After completing the investigation in all respect, I have filed the charge-sheet before the Court.
At this stage, witness has correctly identified the accused who is present in the Court today.
XXXXX by Shri Kuldip Singh, Counsel for the accused. It is correct that I have verified the address of the accused at Dwarka on 29.07.2020 when further investigation was entrusted to me but I did not record statement of any neibours with respect to the staying of the accused there. House of the accused was locked at that time. I do not know since how long the said address was locked nor did I ask anyone about the same. I went alone at the said address. I had physically verified the address of the accused Kabul Lines, Delhi Cantt. I had verified that the accused was residing at Kabul Lines, Delhi Cantt. I cannot say as when the accused left the said address. It is wrong to suggest that I never visited the said house or that the said house was sealed since year 2014. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
5.6 PW6 ASI Sandeep appeared before the court and his deposition is reproduced as under:
The present FIR was handed over to me for investigation by SI Munna Kumar no. D-5380 but the address of the accused was 2/21, Kabul Line, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. Therefore, I had requested that the investigation of the present case be handed over to the concerned Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT GARG GARG Date:
2024.12.16 16:34:56 +0530 division officer of the said area. Thereafter the investigation of the present case was handed over to ASI Krishan Kumar.
XXXXX by Shri Kuldip Singh, Counsel for the accused. I did not verify the address of the accused as I had returned the case file to another IO on the same day. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
6. Statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 24.05.2024, wherein he stated that the address mentioned is not his address and he has been living at the address i.e. C-1/33, Himalayan Apartment sector 22 dwarka Delhi since 2010-2013/ He was living at the address i.e. D-804, Swami Dayanand Apartment, plot no. 5 and sector 6 Dwarka During the period of January 2020 til May 2020. His parents live at the address i.e. D-3, 4, 9th floor, Himalaya Residency Apartment sector 22, Dwarka Delhi who have disowned him since 2014. he is innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. He has never lived at the address i.e. D-3, D4, 9 th floor, Himalya Residency Apartment sector 22 Dwarka. He was living at the address 70/1 3 rd floor, Madhu Vihar Delhi in 2019 and left the address in the end of 2019. Accused stated he wishes to lead defense evidence. 6.1 DW1 Ajay Kumar Jain appeared before the court and his deposition is reproduced as under:
I had purchased a land in Vrindawan, Mathura on 31.03.2011. I got into dispute with opposite party from whom I had purchased the land namely Koshda Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. They started threatening me with dire consequences. I had made a complaint at PS Mathura on 25.07.2013. Thereafter, they started threatening me more and then I had made a complaint to DCP Dwarka on 16.09.2013 and SHO Dwarka on Digitally signed ANKIT by ANKIT GARG Date:
GARG 16:35:01 +0530 2024.12.16 02.09.2013. Thereafter, the opposite party filed a case against me for which I got a stay from Allahabad High Court. Thereafter, Process u/s 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. was issued against me in the cases filed by opposite party. On 26.06.2014, the house of my mother situated at D-3 and D4 at Himalayan Appartment Dwarka, Sector 22 Delhi was sealed by Mathura Police. Thereafter, my mother's house was desealed on the order passed by the hon'ble Allahabad High Court on 08.09.2015, 19.12.2015,03.112015 and 17.11.2015. thereafter, the possession of house of my mother was given to her on 19.02.2016 and my mother disowned me from all my movable and immovable property regarding publication in May 2014. Thereafter, I got stay on my arrest from Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 09.07.2018. I got stay on all the cases filed by Koshda Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and ors from the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court. Thereafter, after my mother expired on 03.05.2019 and I got arrested in FIR no. 671/2015 on 13.07.2020.
Thereafter, I was initially granted interim bail on medical grounds and thereafter, got regular bail from the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. I was also guaranted bail in all the matters pending in Delhi including 138 NI matters. Thereafter, Ms. Monika got auction of my shop situated at Shop no. 1, Pocket 3, Sector 7 Dwarka, Delhi by the Bank and the amount was taken by Ms. Monika vide ex parte order in 2020. It is submitted that the said shop was sealed in 2014. My offices situated at Shop no.1, pocket 3 sector 7 Dwarka and another at office no. 311, 313, 3rd floor, Best Arcade, sector 12, Dwarka Delhi were also closed and sealed by the bank and court since February 2014. My offices no. 311, 313, 3rd floor, Best Arcade, sector 12, Dwarka Delhi in 2015 was vaccated on the direction of the Hon'ble Court in my absence. I have been acquitted in one of the matters u/s 174A IPC in case FIR no.
Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT GARG GARG Date:
2024.12.16 16:35:06 +0530 658/2015. I was not residing at the residence and office addresses since February 2014. The address D-3 and D4 as mentioned above never belong to me. My address was/is C1/33, Himalayan Appartment Dwarka Sector 22, Delhi. Since February 2014, I had never met any person and never handed over any cheque/paper. I am relying upon the following documents:
1 The copy of order and judgment dated 03.01.2024 is Ex.DW1/1 Colly, (OSR).
2. Copy of stay order dated 29.10.2013 passed by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court is Ex.DW1/2 (OSR).
3. The newspaper "The Statesmen" cutting/publication dated 05.05.2014 is Ex.DW1/3 (OSR).
4. The copy of court orders wherein proceedings u/s 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. were initiated is Ex DW1/4 colly (OSR).
5 Copy of order dated 17.12.2015 of Mathura Court and order dated 08.09.2015 Allahabad High Court regarding desealing of property is Ex.DW1/5 Colly (OSR).
6. Copy of Supertaginama/possession letter dated 19.02.2016is Ex.DW1/6 (OSR).
7. Copy of order dated 09.07.2018 of Hon'ble Supreme Court is exhibited DW 1/7 OSR./
8. Copy of order dated 03.11.2015 wherein the property D3 and D4 were desealed by Mathura Court is Exhibit DW1/8 OSR.
9.Copy of 5 orders all dated 25.09.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High court are EX.DW1/9(colly) (OSR).
10. Copy of order dated 22.10.2018, 25.10.2018 passed by Hon'ble Allahabad high court are ExDW1/10(colly) (OSR).
Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT GARG GARG Date:
2024.12.16 16:35:11 +0530
11. Copy of order dated 25.09.2018 passed by Hon'ble Allahabad high court are ExDW1/11 (colly) (OSR).
12. Copy of bail order dated 06.10.2020 and 25.09.2020 of Dwarka Court are Ex.DW1/12 (colly) (OSR).
13. Copy of acquittal order dated 17.11.2022 is ExDW1/13 OSR.
14. Copy of order dated 19.10.2020 passed by the Hon'ble High court Delhi is ExDW1/14 OSR.
15. Copy of order dated 16.03.2021 passed by the Hon'ble Dwarka court Delhi is ExDW1/15 OSR.
16. Copy of order dated 02.09.2013 and 16.09.2013 lodged with SHO/DCP Dwarka is ExDW1/16 (colly) OSR.
17. Copy of death certificate of Smt Santosh Jain is ExDW1/17 OSR.
18. Copy of complaints dated 16.09.2013 lodged with Mathura police as well as SSP Mathura (colly) OSR.
19. Copy of bail orders are ExDW1/19 (colly) OSR.
20. Copy of address proof of the accused is ExDW1/20 OSR. XXXX by Ld APP for the state.
XXXX by Ld. APP for the state.
I know Sh. Virender Kumar Jain since my childhood. It is correct that Sh. Virender Kumar Jain has filed a complaint u/s 138 NI Act. However, I do not have any knowledge regarding the said complaint. My mother was residing at flat no. D3 and D4 at 9th floor, Himalayan residency Dwarka from 2012-2013 till date.
Prior to that I along with my parents residing at Palam. It is cor- rect that Sh. Virender Kumar jain has knowledge about the fact that my parents were residing at D3 and D4 Dwarka. It is wrong to suggest ANKIT Digitally signed by ANKIT GARG GARG Date: 2024.12.16 16:35:16 +0530 that Virender Kumar jain is my childhood friend and he knows about the facts that I was residing at D3 and D4 at 9th floor, Himalayan residency Dwarka with my parents. Since 2014 I never talked to my parents on phone calls. (vol. I was not in contact with my parents with any mode).
It is correct that I had also been operating from my office address i.e. Jain Realtors Pvt. Ltd. At 311 and 313 3rd floor pocket 6 Dwarka along with shop no.1 pocket 3 sector 7 dwarka from 2011 till February 2014. and the same address was in the knowledge of Virender Kumar Jain.
It is wrong to suggest that I took the loan from Virender Kumar Jain in the year 2013.
After 2014, when I started receiving the threatening calls from opposite party I changed my permanent residential address. I was not residing at any particular residence. I cannot pro- vide the details of addresses where I started residing after 2014.
It is wrong to suggest that I was fully aware about the pendency of the cases filed by Virender Kumar Jain. It is wrong to suggest that I was in constant touch with my parents. It is wrong to suggest that the proclamation u/s 82 Cr.P.C. issued against me and the same was published in the local newspaper of Delhi in Hindi and one National Newspaper before the year 2020. It is wrong to suggest that I was residing with my parents at abovestated address and when in the year 2014 Sh. Virender Kuma Jain has filed a complaint u/s 138 NI Act, I left the said house. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
Digitally
Arguments signed by
ANKIT
ANKIT GARG
GARG Date:
2024.12.16
16:35:21
+0530
7. Final arguments on behalf of rival parties were heard. I have heard Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for the accused and carefully perused the records of the case.
8. Ld. counsel for accused submitted that the accused person was never apprised of the processes issued by court in the present case as all the processes were issued at D-3, D4, 9 th floor, Himalaya Residency Apartment, Sector 22 Dwarka Delhi. Ld. counsel for accused submits that this was never the address of the accused. This was the address of his parents who disowned him in 2014. He was declared absconder in 2017 by the Ld. Sh. Sumeet Anand, MM NI Court PHC/ND when he had left the given address already. Therefore, he has never been served with any notice, summon or warrant. He further submits that the process server who allegedly executed the process has not been examined. Therefore, accused shall be acquitted in the present case.
9. Ld. APP for the state submits that the process u/s 82 Cr.P.C. was duly executed by the police officials at the address of the accused. He subsequently failed to appear despite execution of process u/s 82 Cr.P.C. Therefore, he has committed an offence u/s 174A IPC and he shall be convicted for the same and be given maximum punishment.
10. After hearing the submissions of the Ld. APP for the state and Ld. counsel for accused and going through the record, the court holds that the accused has committed an offence u/s 174A IPC and he shall be convicted for the same.
Digitally
signed by
ANKIT
ANKIT GARG
GARG Date:
2024.12.16
16:35:26
+0530
11. Section 174A IPC states that "Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the punishment for not appearing in response to a proclamation issued under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: The punishment for not appearing is imprisonment for up to three years, a fine, or both, If the person has been declared a proclaimed offender, the punishment is imprisonment for up to seven years and a fine."
12. As per the section, whoever fails to appear at specified place and specified time despite publication of the proclamation, is liable to be punished for the offence. The prosecution has to prove that the proclamation was published at specified place and time as required by provision of Cr.P.C. To rebut this the case of prosecution, the accused persons has said that he never had knowledge of any such proclamation.
13. The facts are that the accused person was also accused in a complaint case filed before the court of Sh. Sumeet Anand on 18.07.2017, CC no. 19026/2016 titled as "Virender Kumar Jain Vs. Ajay Kumar Jain". The complaint was regarding bouncing of a cheque. As per the allegations, the complainant transferred some money to the accused in 2013 and later when the accused failed to discharge his liability, case was filed by the complainant in 2014. As per the memo of parties, the address of the accused was the address at Himalaya Residency Dwarka and two more addresses were also given by the complainant in the complaint. It is the case of the accused that he did not reside at the address on the date of execution of process u/s 82 Cr.P.C., thus, he cannot be convicted in the present case.
Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT Date:
GARG GARG 2024.12.16 16:39:44 +0530
14. On careful perusal of the charge-sheet, it is noted that as per the allegations in the complaint case the accused person entered into a transaction with the original complainant Virender Kumar Jain. At that time, in 2013, the accused was residing at his address of Himalaya Residency Dwarka and was also operating another two addresses of Pocket 6 Dwarka and sector 7 Dwarka Delhi till February 2014. The same has been admitted by the accused in his cross examination. As per the accused, He started receiving threats in 2014 from some persons and therefore, he changed his address in that year. He was disowned by his mother and a publication regarding the same was published in May 2014. He also denied that he took any loan from the complainant.
15. It is clear from the facts mentioned by the accused only that he was residing with his mother and father at the Himalaya Residency Complex address till February 2014. As per his submissions only, he was being threatened by some persons, and thus he changed his address willfully to shield from the threats. Thus, he willfully changed his address and tried to hide from his prosecutors. Therefore, there is no dispute that the accused used to reside at the abovementioned address. It is not an ingredient of the offence u/s 174A IPC that the accused person shall be presently residing at the address where the said proclamation is read out. If that was the case, the accused person would have been apprehended by the authorities at the time of execution of NBWs. In such cases, the accused persons usually stopped residing at their well known addresses to shield from prosecution and thus, proclamation is issued by the authorities giving them time to present themselves. As per the accused only, the Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT GARG GARG Date:
2024.12.16 16:39:48 +0530 complainant had knowledge of his abovementioned address and other two addresses of office and these were his well-known addresses.
16. As per PW1 Monika, the accused person took loan from them in 2013 and when he did not return the same, they filed a case u/s 138 NI Act against him. As per the PW, the accused and the husband of PW1 had friendly relations and as per PW1, the accused was living in Himalaya Residency.
17. It is clear from the facts stated by the accused and the prosecution witness that the accused was living at his address of Himalaya Residency sector 22 Dwarka at least till February 2014. It was a well known address. It is also clear from the cross examination of the defence witness that even if the accused changed his address, he intended to stay anonymous and did not want to disclose his address to anyone for reasons best known to him. It is also noted that the accused person is unable to tell the details of the addresses at which he stays since living his parents house in 2014. It is also peculiar to note that as per his defence evidence, the accused was facing litigation in various courts and his mother disowned him in May 2014. It can be clearly seen that the address of the accused was a well known address which was well known to his family and friends.
And he never disclosed his whereabouts after February 2014 to anyone including this court.
18. Therefore, it is clear from the abovesaid facts that the last known address of the accused person was flat no. D3 and D4 at 9th floor, Himalayan residency Dwarka. Thus, it cannot be said by the accused person that he never received any notice or warrant at his ANKIT GARG Digitally signed by ANKIT GARG Date: 2024.12.16 address. Order of the then, Ld. MM NI Act Sh. Sumeet Anand PHC/ND also reflects the intention of the accused person wherein it has been clearly stated that as per the mother of the accused, the accused closely keeping a watch on court proceedings and was willfully absenting from court.
19. Therefore, it cannot be said that issuance of summons and warrants and proclamation us 82 Cr.P.C. at the abovementioned address of the accused person is improper. Therefore, the only question left to be adjudicated is that whether the proclamation was issued properly to the abovementioned address.
20. In order to prove allegations against the accused, prosecution had also relied upon the testimony of PW3. PW3 ASI Krishan Kumar stated that the proclamation was ordered by the court in CC no. 19026/2016 titled as "Virender Kumar Jain Vs. Ajay Kumar Jain"
and the accused was declared absconder via order dated 18.07.2017. The order dated 18.07.2017 was passed during the court proceedings and the same was passed after due satisfaction that accused failed to appear before the court. Even otherwise, the order itself is not in dispute and it is also not in dispute that accused had failed to appear before the court after issuance of proclamation U/'s. 82 Cr.P.C. issued by the court in abovementioned case bearing CC no. 19026/2016 titled as "Virender Kumar Jain Vs. Ajay Kumar Jain". The registration of FIR and arrest of the accused in pursuance of Investigation of the case is also not in dispute. The plea of the accused that the process server has not been examined during trial is not a valid plea as there is no dispute regarding the court records and the statement of process server was duly recorded by the then, Ld. ANKIT GARG Digitally signed by ANKIT GARG Date: 2024.12.16 16:39:56 +0530 MM NI Act Sh. Sumeet Anand PHC/ND. The execution of the proceedings u/s 82 Cr.P.C. have also not been disputed by the accused person. It was a public act done be a public official and it was executed properly, as per the orders of the court trying the case under NI Act. Therefore, the presumption of such act of being properly executed lies in the favor of prosecution. The accused person has not rebutted this presumption. His only defence that the process server was not made a witness does not hold any ground as the execution of process u/s 82 Cr.P.C. has not been disputed by the accused. There is nothing on record to suggest that such proclamation was not executed according to provisions of section 82 Cr.P.C.
21. Therefore, it is clear that the last known address of the accused person was flat no. D3 and D4 at 9th floor, Himalayan residency Dwarka, and the process u/s 82 Cr.P.C was duly executed at the said address. Therefore, the accused person did not appear before this court despite there being a proclamation against him to appear. Hence, the court is of the considered view that allegation of the offence punishable U/s. 174A IPC is proved beyond reasonable doubt and accused is held guilty and convicted for the same.
22. Copy of the judgment and miscellaneous order be given free of cost to the convict Ajay Kumar Jain S/o Sh. Suresh Kumar Jain.
This judgment contains 18 pages and each page bears my Digitally signature. ANKIT signed by ANKIT GARG Date:
GARG 2024.12.16
Announced in the open court 16:40:01
+0530
on 13.12.2024.
(Ankit Garg)
JMFC-08, PHC, ND