Delhi District Court
State vs Sanjeev on 12 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. ARUSHI PARWAL, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS-06, SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
DELHI
CNR No. DLSH020099632019
Case No.: 6048/2019
FIR No.: 413/2019
U/S: 25 Arms Act
P.S.: Seema Puri
STATE v. SANJEEV
JUDGMENT
1. Date of institution of the case : 08.08.2019
2. Date of commission of offence : 29.06.2019
3. Name of the complainant : Ct. Virender PIS No. 29102871
4. Name of accused(s), parentage and address : Sanjeev, S/o Sh. Shiv Kumar, R/o H. No. A-3, Dairy Farm, Kondli Gaon, New Ashok Nagar, Delhi.
Digitally signed by ARUSHI ARUSHI PARWAL
Date:
PARWAL 2026.05.12
16:02:01
+0530
FIR No.: 413/2019 PS Seemapuri 1/12 State v. Sanjeev
5. Offence(s) complained of : 25 Arms Act
6. Offence(s) charged with : 25 Arms Act
7. Plea of accused : Accused pleaded not guilty
8. Final order : Acquitted
9. Date of pronouncement : 12.05.2026
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 29.06.2019, the complainant along with Ct. Kuldeep went for patrolling. At around 02.25 p.m., they reached at Gol Chakkar, Old Seemapuri and saw that one person was running after deboarding a DTC Bus. Even the passenger inside the bus was shouting. When the said person was called upon to stop, he started to retreat faster. He was apprehended and his identity was disclosed to be that of the present accused. Upon his cursory search, a button-actuated knife was found in his possession. The intimation of the same was given at the PS. The accused and case property were handed over to the IO. Accordingly, the present FIR was lodged at PS Digitally signed by ARUSHI PARWAL ARUSHI Date:
PARWAL 2026.05.12
16:02:07
+0530
FIR No.: 413/2019 PS Seemapuri 2/12 State v. Sanjeev
Seemapuri under Section 25 Arms Act, 1959.
2. After investigation, chargesheet was filed against the accused for offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act, 1959. Vide order dated 08.08.2019 of Ld. Predecessor, cognizance of offence had been taken. Copy of chargesheet and documents was supplied to the accused in terms of provision under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C."). Vide order dated 11.04.2023 of Ld. Predecessor, charge for offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act, 1959 had been framed upon the accused. Accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Matter was accordingly listed for prosecution evidence (PE).
3. During PE, the prosecution examined three witnesses in support of its case. PW/ Duty Officer who had registered the present FIR and PW to prove the DAD notification were dropped from list of witnesses upon admission of genuineness of these relevant documents (without contents) by the accused under Section 294 Cr.P.C..
4. PW-1/ complainant HC Virender (inadvertently mentioned as PW-3 in the evidence sheet by Ld. Predecessor) deposed about the contents of the complaint Ex.PW-1/A. He had correctly identified the accused. Once the IO had arrived at the spot, he had asked public persons to join the investigation, however, they had refused. IO had arrested the accused and personally searched him vide memos Ex.PW-1/B and Ex.PW-1/C, Digitally signed by ARUSHI ARUSHI PARWAL PARWAL Date:
2026.05.12 16:02:13 +0530 FIR No.: 413/2019 PS Seemapuri 3/12 State v. Sanjeev respectively. He had seized the case property vide seizure memo Ex.PW-1/D and had prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant. He had prepared the rough sketch of the knife, which is Ex.PW-1/E. IO had seal the case property with his seal and had then handed over the seal to Ct. Kuldeep vide seal handing over memo Ex.PW-1/F. Ct. Kuldeep was sent with tehrir for registration of FIR. IO had recorded the disclosure statement of the accused, which is Ex.PW-1/G. He correctly identified the case property, which is Ex.P1. In his cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that the spot was a slightly crowded area. He also deposed that he had not offered his search to the accused before searching him. The FIR number on the arrest memo, seizure memo etc. was mentioned after registration of FIR. He denied that nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused and that the case property was planted upon him. He denied that all proceedings were carried out at the PS.
5. PW-2/ IO ASI Bijender Kumar deposed about the investigation conducted by him. He had prepared the tehrir, which is Ex.PW-2/A. After registration of the FIR, he had recorded the disclosure statement of the accused and had thereafter arrested him and personally searched him. After conclusion of investigation, he had prepared the chargesheet and had filed the same before the court. He was duly cross-examined on behalf of the accused. He denied that the accused was lifted from Bus Digitally signed by ARUSHI PARWAL ARUSHI Date:
PARWAL 2026.05.12
16:02:19
+0530
FIR No.: 413/2019 PS Seemapuri 4/12 State v. Sanjeev
stop ISBT, Anand Vihar. PW-3 HC Kuldeep deposed that on the day of incident, he had noticed one blue-coloured bus had come at the spot. He had also deposed about the contents of the complaint. He was duly cross- examined on behalf of the accused. After examination of PW-3, PE was closed vide order dated 07.11.2025 of Ld. Predecessor.
6. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. read with Section 281 Cr.P.C.. The accused denied the allegations against him and stated that he had been falsely implicated in the present case. The evidence against him was fabricated and the recovery had been planted upon him. The accused did not lead any defence evidence. Accordingly, matter was listed for final arguments.
7. During final arguments, Ld. APP for the State has argued that the recovery of buttondar knife from the possession of the accused has been duly proved by the PWs. They have corroborated the prosecution version and had correctly identified the accused. The identity of the case property was also established during the course of trial. IO has proved the investigation conducted and there are no material contradictions in the testimonies of PWs. Accordingly, the State has proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable and he should be convicted.
Digitally
signed by
ARUSHI
ARUSHI PARWAL
PARWAL Date:
2026.05.12
16:02:24
+0530
FIR No.: 413/2019 PS Seemapuri 5/12 State v. Sanjeev
8. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that no public person was joined in the investigation. The same is the case despite the spot being a public place. Even no witness from the alleged bus had been examined in the present case. There is no registration number of the bus in question, from which the accused allegedly deboarded. Complainant had not offered his own search before searching the accused. There is no evidence of possession of knife with the accused as there is no photography or videography. There are material contradictions in the testimonies of PWs. The accused had been falsely implicated in the present case and the case property has been planted upon him. Accordingly, it is prayed that the accused should be given the benefit of the doubt and should be acquitted in the present case.
9. As per the cardinal principle of criminal justice, accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the burden is on the prosecution throughout trial, to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the alleged offence(s) had been committed by the accused(s). Before going into the merits of the case, relevant provision of law is hereby discussed. As per Section 25 of the Arms Act, under sub-clause (1B)(b) of the said provision, acquisition, possession or carrying of arms in contravention of notification issued under Section 4 of the Arms Act is an offence. Section 4 stipulates that the Central Digitally signed by ARUSHI ARUSHI PARWAL PARWAL Date:
2026.05.12 16:02:30 +0530 FIR No.: 413/2019 PS Seemapuri 6/12 State v. Sanjeev Government can regulate possession, acquisition or carrying of certain arms not firearms in any area whenever it is necessary or expedient in public interest. After the notification, possession of such arms in that specified area without any license would be a breach liable to be punished under Section 25(1B)(b) of the Arms Act. In the present case, the prosecution has relied upon the notification dated 29.10.1980 (Ex.A3) issued by the Delhi Administration. As per the said notification, possession for sale of certain knives with specified sharp-edged blade of more than 7.62 cms or more in length and 1.72 cms or more in breadth is barred. Further, as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 'Gunwantlal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh' [(1972) 2 SCC 194], has been held that the possession under the provision ought to be conscious possession.
10. The case of the prosecution hinges upon the recovery of the illicit arm from the accused. Thus, the prosecution was duty-bound to prove the factum of recovery beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of PW-1 and PW-3, to prove the factum of recovery of button-actuated knife from the accused. The depositions of these witnesses are similar in tenor and to the effect that on the date of incident, while they were patrolling in the area, they apprehended the accused upon alarm being raised by passenger in a bus, and recovered an illicit knife from his possession. However, after having Digitally signed ARUSHI by ARUSHI PARWAL PARWAL Date: 2026.05.12 16:02:36 +0530 FIR No.: 413/2019 PS Seemapuri 7/12 State v. Sanjeev gone through all testimonies of prosecution witnesses and entire evidence filed on record, in the considered opinion of this court, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are material discrepancies and deficiencies in the prosecution case.
11. Firstly, the main defence of the accused is that no public witness has been joined in this case. Since the defence of the accused is of false implication by planting recovery, this fact assumes significance. In this regard, no PW has stated in his testimony that he had made any efforts to join public persons at the time the accused was apprehended or till the time they waited for the IO to arrive at the spot. They have also not deposed about any efforts made by the IO to join public persons in their presence. In fact, all PWs deposed that IO had not joined any public person/ independent witness in the investigation. In the sequences of events, the incident took place at 02.25 pm. The tehrir was recorded at 05.15 p.m.. The FIR (Ex.A1) was lodged thereafter and the accused was arrested at 6.35 p.m.. Accordingly, as per the prosecution version itself, the police officials along with accused were present at the spot for more than four hours and it is not the case that they were hard-pressed for time. Thus, it is clear that no efforts were made by the IO to join any public person. IO has not deposed about any efforts taken by him to join independent witnesses in the investigation. The said conduct in a public place does not inspire confidence in the spot investigation or to prove the Digitally signed by ARUSHI ARUSHI PARWAL PARWAL Date:
2026.05.12 16:02:44 +0530 FIR No.: 413/2019 PS Seemapuri 8/12 State v. Sanjeev recovery of illicit arm from the accused.
12. Secondly, there are other material discrepancies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. As per the testimony of PW-1/complainant, accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted prior to registration of FIR and details of FIR were added post-registration of FIR. On the other hand, PW-2/IO and PW-3 have deposed that the arrest and personal search of the accused were conducted post-registration of FIR. Further, PW-1/ complainant deposed that the bus from which the accused deboarded was green in colour while the other witness at the spot i.e. PW-3 deposed that the bus was blue in the colour. There is no registration number of the alleged bus in the FIR. There is no witness from the bus who has been examined by the prosecution. The same further creates doubt in the prosecution story and the alleged incident.
Moreover, even the site plan has not been exhibited during the course of trial. PW-2/ IO has not deposed about preparing the site plan. The said are material discrepancies which make the prosecution version improbable.
13. Thirdly, with respect to recovery of case property, PW-2/ IO deposed that the he had sealed the case property and had handed over the seal to PW-3. However, he has not deposed about depositing the same in malkhana. Pertinently, no Register No. 19 entry has been exhibited Digitally signed by ARUSHI ARUSHI PARWAL PARWAL Date:
2026.05.12 16:02:49 +0530 FIR No.: 413/2019 PS Seemapuri 9/12 State v. Sanjeev during course of trial which shows or establishes that the seal was deposited in the malkhana, so that the same remains outside the reach of the IO/other police officials. The fate of the seal remains unexplained. As such, it is seen that the prosecution has not been able to lead evidence to show proper chain of custody of the property. The links are missing and benefit of the same can only go to the accused.
14. Considering all of the above, the Court finds that the narration of events, alleged commission of offence by the accused and version of the prosecution cannot be relied upon on account of material discrepancies/ deficiencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. The accused has been successful in pointing out the deficiencies in the case of the prosecution. The recovery of the illicit arm from the possession of the accused is highly doubtful, owing to various circumstances discussed above. Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to prove its case and accused cannot be convicted on the basis of the same.
15. In view of above observations and findings, in the considered opinion of the Court, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused Sanjeev is acquitted for offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act.
At request, previous bail bonds of the accused are hereby accepted as bonds under Section 437A Cr.P.C., for a period of six months from Digitally signed by ARUSHI ARUSHI PARWAL PARWAL Date:
2026.05.12 16:02:55 +0530 FIR No.: 413/2019 PS Seemapuri 10/12 State v. Sanjeev today.
Ordered accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room as per rules.Digitally signed
Announced in open court ARUSHI by ARUSHI
PARWAL
PARWAL Date: 2026.05.12
on 12.05.2026 16:02:59 +0530
(ARUSHI PARWAL)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-06
Shahdara District, Karkardooma Court, Delhi FIR No.: 413/2019 PS Seemapuri 11/12 State v. Sanjeev Chart for witnesses examined Prosecution witness no. Name of witness Description PW-1 HC Virendra Complainant PW-2 ASI Bijender Kumar IO PW-3 HC Kuldeep Police witness Chart for exhibited documents Exhibit no. Description of the Proved by/ Attested by Exhibit PW-1/A Complaint PW-1 PW-1/B Arrest memo PW-1 PW-1/C Personal search memo PW-1 PW-1/D Seizure memo PW-1 PW-1/E Rough sketch PW-1 PW-1/F Seal handing over PW-1 memo PW-1/G Disclosure memo PW-1 P1 Case property PW-1 PW-2/A Tehrir PW-2 PW-3/A Site plan PW-3 A1 FIR Admitted u/s 294 Cr.P.C.
A2 Certificate u/s 65B Admitted u/s 294
Indian Evidence Act Cr.P.C.
A3 DAD Notification 1980 Admitted u/s 294
Cr.P.C.
Digitally signed
by ARUSHI
ARUSHI PARWAL
PARWAL Date:
2026.05.12
16:03:07 +0530
FIR No.: 413/2019 PS Seemapuri 12/12 State v. Sanjeev