Delhi District Court
State vs Mukesh Kumar on 20 September, 2014
State vs Mukesh Kumar
IN THE COURT OF MS. BABITA PUNIYA: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE-01, EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
State vs. Mukesh Kumar
FIR No. 303/03
U/sec. 9B (b) Explosive Act, 1884
PS: Gandhi Nagar
Date of institution of the case: 10.12.2003
Date on which judgment is reserved: Not reserved
Date on which judgment is delivered: 20.09.2014
Unique I. D. No. 2402R00103532003
JUDGMENT
a) Sr. No. of the case : 120/3
b) Date of commission of the offence : 20.10.2003
c) Name of the complainant : SI Dharam Pal
d) Name of the accused and his parentage : Mukesh Kumar,
S/o Late Shri Shyam Lal,
R/o H. No. 9/4536, Gali No.5,
Ajit Nagar, Gandhi Nagar,
Delhi
e) Offence complained of or proved : Sec. 9-B the Explosive Act, 1884
f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) Final order : Convicted
FIR No. 303/03 Page No. 1 of 6
State vs Mukesh Kumar
h) Date of such order : 20.09.2014
i) Brief reasons for the just decision of the case: Succinctly stated, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 20.10.2003, SI Dharam Pal along with Ct. Ram Kumar and Ct. Pavender Kumar was patrolling in the area. When they reached at the place Mark 'A' in the site plan, they found one person in possession of fire crackers for the purpose of selling without any licence, who on interrogation disclosed his name as Mukesh Kumar. Thereafter, SI Dharam Pal seized the crackers vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A, put them in a gunny bag and sealed it with the seal of "DP". The seal after use was handed over to Ct. Ram Kumar. IO/SI Dharam Pal prepared the rukka and sent the tehrir through Ct. Pavender Kumar to the Duty Officer for registration of the case. On the basis whereof FIR/Ex. PW1/A was registered under sections 9-B (b) of the Explosive Act, 1884 (herein after referred to as the Act) and an endorsement/Ex. PW1/B to this effect was made on the rukka. He came back at the spot after registration of the FIR and handed over the original rukka and FIR to the IO/SI Dharam Pal. The IO prepared the site plan, conducted the personal search of the accused vide personal search memo Ex. PW3/A, arrested him vide arrest memo Mark X1 and recorded the statement of witnesses' u/sec 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the court. Consequently, the accused was summoned to face the trial and the copies of FIR No. 303/03 Page No. 2 of 6 State vs Mukesh Kumar documents, relied upon by the prosecution, were supplied to the accused as per the norms.
Thereafter, the charge u/sec 9-B of the Act was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
With a view to connect the accused with the crime, the prosecution has examined three witnesses.
PW1/HC Lakhi Singh was the Duty Officer who recorded the FIR/Ex. PW1/A and made the endorsement/Ex.PW1/B on the rukka.
PW2/Ct. Pavender Kumar and PW3 Ram Kumar were patrolling in the area along with the IO/SI Dharam Pal and apprehended the accused with the fire crackers without valid licence.
Ld. Defence Counsel, in the midst of the prosecution evidence, moved an application for pleading guilty. It is stated by the ld. Counsel for the accused that he is desirous of pleading guilty.
It is no more res-integra that an accused can plead guilty at any stage of trial and in this regard reference may be made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Maharashtra etc vs. Sukhdeo Singh and Anr 1992 AIR 2100=1992 SCR (3) 480.
I have explained the consequences of pleading guilty and the allegations leveled by the prosecution in vernacular to the accused, however, he reiterated his plea of FIR No. 303/03 Page No. 3 of 6 State vs Mukesh Kumar guilty and stated that he is desirous of pleading guilty without any force, pressure or undue influence and that he has understood the allegations. I am of the considered view that the accused has understood the nature of the allegations levelled against him and that plea of guilt is made voluntarily without any pressure or undue influence after understanding the allegations, hence the same is accepted. Accordingly, the accused Mukesh Kumar, in view of the statement recorded separately, is held guilty and convicted for the offence charged with.
Case property shall stand confiscated to the State and be destroyed as per rules after the expiry of the period of limitation of appeal. Let the convict be heard on the quantum of sentence. Announced in open Court on 20th day of September, 2014 (Babita Puniya) MM-01/East/KKD Courts/Delhi 20.09.2014 This judgment contains 04 pages and each page bears my signature.
(Babita Puniya) MM-01/East/KKD Courts/Delhi 20.09.2014 FIR No. 303/03 Page No. 4 of 6 State vs Mukesh Kumar IN THE COURT OF MS. BABITA PUNIYA: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-01, EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI State vs. Mukesh Kumar FIR No. 303/03 U/sec. 9B (b) Explosive Act, 1884 PS: Gandhi Nagar Present: Ld. APP for State.
Convict in person with Counsel Shri Ajay Biltoria. ORDER ON QUANTUM OF SENTENCE It is stated by the ld. Counsel for the convict that a lienent view may kindly be taken as he has faced the ordeal of protracted trial for the last more than 11 years and is the first time offender.
I have heard the ld. APP for State and the ld. Defence counsel and have also perused the records very carefully.
The incidence is of the year 2003. Offence under section 9-B (b) of Act is punishable with fine which may extend to Rs. 3000/- or with imprisonment which may extend to 02 years or with both. The convict is repenting for his act and has voluntarily pleaded guilty. Further, there is nothing on the record to show that the convict is a previous convict. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the convict deserves leniency and ends of justice would be adequately met if he is sentenced to fine of Rs. 2,000/-. Ordered accordingly. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Fine paid vide receipt FIR No. 303/03 Page No. 5 of 6 State vs Mukesh Kumar number 320199. Bail bonds stands cancelled. Surety discharged. Endorsement, if any, be cancelled. Original documents, if any, be handed over to the person entitled thereto on acknowledgment. Case property shall stand confiscated to the State. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
(Babita Puniya) MM-01/East/KKD Courts/Delhi 20.09.2014 FIR No. 303/03 Page No. 6 of 6