Delhi District Court
State vs . Rahul @ Kale on 16 May, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVLI TALWAR
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE - 06, CENTRAL DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
D.D. No. 65A dated 27.09.2022
PS - Sadar Bazar
U/s - 53/116 DP Act
State Vs. Rahul @ Kale
JUDGMENT
(a) Criminal Case No. 16/2022
(b) CNR No. DLCT02-044514-2022
(c) Date of commission of 27.09.2022
offence
(d) Name of the complainant HC Pankaj Sharma
(e) Name of the accused Rahul @ Kale s/o Lt. Vijay Kumar r/o
person(s), his parentage House No. 1177, Nala Road, Gali No. 11,
and residence Sadar Bazar, Delhi.
(f) Offence(s) complained of Section 53/116 Delhi Police Act
or proved
(g) Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
(h) Final Order Convicted
(i) Date of institution of case 27.09.2022
(j) Date of judgment 16.05.2023
Brief reasons for the decision of the case: -
1. The genesis of the prosecution story is that on 27.09.2022 at unknown time, the accused was arrested in DD No. 21A dated 27.09.2022 u/s 107/151 Cr.P.C. and during investigation, it was found that the accused was residing within the jurisdiction of PS Sadar Bazar in contravention of externment order no. 518-540/Exten. Cell/North dated 04.08.2021, passed by Ms. Anita Roy, Additional DCP, vide which he was directed to remove himself beyond SHIVLI Digitally signed by SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2023.05.16 17:06:56 +0530 DD No. 65A PS Sadar Bazar State Vs Rahul @ Kale Page No. 1 of 6 the limits of NCT of Delhi for a period of 2 years within seven days from the date of receipt of the said order and thereby, committed an offence punishable under section 53/116 of Delhi Police Act 1978.
2. On finding a prima facie case to proceed against the accused, cognizance of the offence u/s 53/116 DP Act was taken on 27.09.2022. The provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C were duly complied with. Arguments on the point of notice were heard and notice for commission of offence u/s 53/116 Delhi Police Act was served upon the accused on 12.12.2022 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined two witnesses: PW1 Ct. Atul and PW2 HC Pankaj Sharma (Complainant as well as Investigating Officer).
4. Prior to delving into the merits of the present case, it is relevant to discuss the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
5. PW1 Ct. Atul deposed that on 27.09.2022, he alongwith HC Pankaj Sharma were present at PS Sadar Bazar and accused Rahul @ Kale was brought to PS vide DD No. 21A u/s 107/151 Cr.P.C. and during investigation, it was revealed that accused was externed from Delhi for a period of two years vide order No. 518-540/Exten. Cell/North dated 04.08.2021 Ex. PW1/A, pursuant to which IO arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/B and conducted his personal search vide personal search memo Ex. PW1/C. Thereafter, proceedings u/s 47 of Delhi Police Act were initiated and Kalandra u/s 53/116 Delhi Police Act was filed. The witness correctly Digitally signed identified the accused during his testimony before the Court. SHIVLI by SHIVLI TALWAR Date: TALWAR 2023.05.16 17:07:04 +0530 DD No. 65A PS Sadar Bazar State Vs Rahul @ Kale Page No. 2 of 6 During his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused, the witness admitted that no public witness had joined in Kalandra u/s 107/151 Cr.P.C. He also admitted that he had not produced the accused before concerned DCP who had passed the externment order against the accused. He also admitted that he had not called any public person to join the investigation in the present matter. He further deposed that he had not served the copy of externment order personally upon the accused prior to his arrest in the present case. The witness denied the suggestion that the order was not served upon him from the Court of DCP concerned. He also denied the suggestion that he has falsely implicated the accused in the present proceedings.
6. PW2 HC Pankaj is the Complainant as well as Investigating Officer. He deposed on similar lines as PW1. He further proved on record DD No. 65A Ex. PW2/A. The witness correctly identified the accused during his testimony before the Court.
During his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused, the witness admitted that no public witness had joined in Kalandra u/s 107/151 Cr.P.C. He also admitted that he had not produced the accused before concerned DCP who had passed the externment order against the accused. He also admitted that he had not called any public person to join the investigation in the present matter. He further deposed that he had not served the copy of externment order personally upon the accused prior to his arrest in the present case. The witness denied the suggestion that the order was not served upon him from the Court of DCP concerned. He also denied the suggestion that he has falsely implicated the accused in the present proceedings.
7. The prosecution evidence was closed on 17.03.2023 and the accused was SHIVLI Digitally signed by SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2023.05.16 17:07:12 +0530 DD No. 65A PS Sadar Bazar State Vs Rahul @ Kale Page No. 3 of 6 examined u/s 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C. on 13.04.2023 wherein all incriminating evidence was put to him. The accused pleaded innocence but did not lead any evidence in his defence.
8. I have given a considered thought to the rival submissions made by Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for accused keeping in view the material available on the judicial file.
9. Ld. APP for the State has contended that prosecution has established the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and, therefore, the accused deserves to be convicted for the offence in question.
10. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has been argued that the copy of externment order was not served upon the accused prior to his arrest in the present case and thus, he was not aware of the same. Thus, it has been argued that the accused is entitled to acquittal.
11. Before proceeding further on merits of this case, let us first discuss the relevant provision of law for which notice of accusation was served upon the accused.
12. Section 53 of the Delhi Police Act is reproduced below as follows:
"53. Procedure on failure of person to leave the area and his entry therein after removal.- If a person to whom a direction has been issued under section 46, section 47 or section 48 to remove himself from Delhi or any part thereof- Digitally signed SHIVLI by SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2023.05.16 17:07:19 +0530 DD No. 65A PS Sadar Bazar State Vs Rahul @ Kale Page No. 4 of 6
(a) fails to remove himself as directed; or
(b) having so removed himself enters Delhi or any part thereof within the period specified in the order, otherwise than with the permission in writing of the Commissioner of Police under section 54, the Commissioner of Police may cause him to be arrested and removed in Police custody to such place outside Delhi or any part thereof as the Commissioner of police may in each case specify."
13. Further, Section 116 of the Delhi Police Act provides the penalty for entering without permission in the area from which a person is directed to remove himself, or overstaying when permitted to return temporarily. It provides that whenever any person, in contravention of a direction issued to him under section 46, section 47 or section 48 enters or returns without permission to Delhi, or any part thereof, from which he was directed to remove himself, he shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine.
14. In the case at hand, the accused was directed by the Additional DCP under section 47 of the DP Act to remove himself beyond the limits of NCT of Delhi for a period of two years within seven days from the date of receipt of the externment order dated 04.08.2021. Upon query made by Court during the course of final arguments, accused submitted that he resides in Loni, Ghaziabad. However, he refused to furnish his address in Loni, Ghaziabad. Furthermore, the accused has also failed to explain as to why he is residing in Loni, Ghaziabad if he is not aware of the externment order passed against him. The accused has also not disputed the factum of his arrest in DD No. SHIVLI Digitally signed by SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2023.05.16 17:07:26 +0530 DD No. 65A PS Sadar Bazar State Vs Rahul @ Kale Page No. 5 of 6 21A dated 27.09.2022 u/s 107/151 Cr.P.C. Thus, the apprehension of the accused on 27.09.2022 after the passing of externment order proves that the accused has violated the same and it leaves no doubt in the case of the prosecution. The accused has failed to impeach the credibility of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and no explanation could be given by the accused for violation of the externment order and his presence within the limits of NCT of Delhi.
15. In light of the discussion made above, this Court has no hesitation in hereby arriving at the finding that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts and hence, the accused stands convicted for the offence u/s 53/116 DP Act.
16. Let the accused be heard on the quantum of sentence.
Digitally signed SHIVLI by SHIVLI
TALWAR
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT TALWAR Date: 2023.05.16
17:07:33 +0530
on : 16.05.2023
(SHIVLI TALWAR)
MM-06(C)/THC/Delhi/16.05.2023
DD No. 65A PS Sadar Bazar State Vs Rahul @ Kale Page No. 6 of 6