Delhi District Court
State vs Aman Chatu on 13 December, 2025
CIS No. 24/2025
State v. Aman Chatu
DD No. 069
(NabiKarim)
U/s: 53/116 DP Act, 1978
1
IN THE COURT OF DR. RAJ KUMAR SINGH
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-05
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CIS No. 24/2025
State v. Aman Chatu
DD No. 069
(NabiKarim)
U/s:53/116 DP Act, 1978
JUDGMENT
(a) CIS No. 24/2025 (b) Date of offence 26.09.2025 c) Complainant HC Bijender Singh, PS Nabi Karim (d) Accused Aman Chatu S/o Suresh @ Ravi (e) Offence 53/116 DP Act (f) Plea of accused Pleaded Not guilty (g) Final Order Acquitted (h) Date of Institution 27.09.2025 (i) Date when judgment was Not reserved reserved (j) Date of judgment 13.12.2025
1. The present kalandra arises out of an allegation that the accused Aman @ Chatu S/o Suresh @ Ravi, a history sheeter of PS Nabi Karim, violated an externment order issued against him by the competent authority and was found present within the limits of NCT of Delhi on 26.09.2025 near Prem Nagar, Kuda Khata, Amarpuri, Nabi Karim. It is alleged that by remaining pres2.ent within NCT of Delhi during the operative period of externment, without Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH CIS No. 24/2025 State v. Aman Chatu DD No. 069 (NabiKarim) U/s: 53/116 DP Act, 1978 2 written permission, he committed an offence punishable under Section 116 of the Delhi Police Act.
2. After the kalandra was placed before this Court, in compliance with Section 207 CrPC read with Section 230 BNSS, copy of the kalandra and the accompanying documents was supplied to the accused against acknowledgment on 10.10.2025. On the same date, notice of accusation under Section 116 of the Delhi Police Act was framed and read over and explained to the accused. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. On 10.10.2025, a statement of the accused was recorded under Section 294 CrPC read with Section 330 BNSS. The accused, without prejudice to his defence and without admitting any allegation, did not dispute the genuineness of GD No. 69A, which was marked Ex. AD-1, and the externment order dated 24.07.2025, effective from 31.07.2025, which was marked Ex. AD-2. He specifically stated that his admission was confined only to the genuineness of the documents and that he did not accept the truth of the allegations contained therein. On this basis, at the request of the prosecution, the formal witness regarding the externment order was dropped.
4. The prosecution examined two witnesses in all. PW-1 HC Bijender Singh and PW-2 HC Mahesh Kumar are Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH CIS No. 24/2025 State v. Aman Chatu DD No. 069 (NabiKarim) U/s: 53/116 DP Act, 1978 3 police officials of PS Nabi Karim. In substance, both deposed that on 26.09.2025 they were on beat patrolling duty in the area of Chinot Basti, Nabi Karim. At about 9.35 p.m., a secret informer allegedly met them and informed that one Aman @ Chatu, an externed person, was standing near Prem Nagar, Kuda Khata, Nabi Karim. They stated that they proceeded to the indicated place and there apprehended the accused, who, on inquiry, was found to be the same person against whom externment order No. 3188-3210 dated 24.07.2025, effective from 31.07.2025, had been issued. PW-1 stated that he thereafter recorded GD entry No. 69A, arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/A, conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW1/B, got his medical examination done, and prepared and filed the present kalandra under Section 116 DP Act. PW-2 broadly corroborated PW-1 regarding the alleged information, apprehension and arrest of the accused, and the fact that he was an externed person as per the said order.
5. In cross-examination, PW-1 HC Bijender stated that they had left PS Nabi Karim at about 9.15 p.m. for beat patrolling duty on foot, that the distance between the police station and the place of arrest was about 300 to 400 metres, that the place of arrest was a public area, that public persons were present at the time of arrest and that no public person was joined in the proceedings. He admitted that no CCTV camera was installed at the place of arrest and that no photography or Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH CIS No. 24/2025 State v. Aman Chatu DD No. 069 (NabiKarim) U/s: 53/116 DP Act, 1978 4 videography was done. He further admitted that although public persons were present, none was joined as a witness.
6. PW-2 HC Mahesh Kumar stated in cross- examination that they had left the police station at about 9.15 p.m., that the distance between the police station and the place of arrest was about one kilometre, that the accused was arrested at about 9.35 p.m. and that they left the spot at about 10.30 p.m. He too admitted that the place of arrest was a public area, that public persons were present at the time of alleged apprehension, that no public person was joined in the proceedings, that no CCTV camera was installed at the spot and that no photography or videography was conducted.
7. It is noticeable that although both witnesses stated that they were on beat patrolling duty, the departure DD entry regarding their patrolling duty has not been proved or placed on record. Only GD No. 69A, which relates to the alleged post-fact information of apprehension, has been tendered and its genuineness admitted for formal proof. The duty roster or beat deployment order showing that PW-1 and PW-2 were actually detailed for patrolling in the concerned area at the relevant date and time has also not been placed on record.
8. After closure of prosecution evidence on 01.11.2025 at the request of the learned APP, the statement of the accused Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH CIS No. 24/2025 State v. Aman Chatu DD No. 069 (NabiKarim) U/s: 53/116 DP Act, 1978 5 under Section 313 CrPC read with Sections 316 and 351 BNSS was recorded. The accused denied all incriminating circumstances put to him. He specifically denied that he was present at Prem Nagar, Kuda Khata, Amarpuri at the stated time and denied that he had violated any externment order. He disputed the correctness of GD No. 69A, the arrest memo and the personal search memo as against him, and asserted that he had been falsely implicated. He opted not to lead any defence evidence.
9. Thereafter, the matter was listed for final arguments. Learned APP for the State submitted that the existence of the externment order had been admitted for genuineness by the accused and that the consistent testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 proved his presence within NCT of Delhi during the currency of the externment period, which was sufficient to bring home the offence under Section 116 DP Act. Learned Legal Aid Defence Counsel, on the other hand, contended that there was no independent witness to support the alleged apprehension despite the place being a public area, that no written notice was served upon any of the public persons who allegedly refused to join, that the basic patrolling DD and duty roster were not produced, that the secret informer was not examined, that there were inconsistencies regarding distances and timings, and that the admission under Section 294 CrPC was limited only to genuineness of documents and did not establish knowledge or violation of the externment RAJ KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR SINGH CIS No. 24/2025 State v. Aman Chatu DD No. 069 (NabiKarim) U/s: 53/116 DP Act, 1978 6 order. It was argued that the prosecution had failed to discharge its burden and that the accused was entitled to benefit of doubt.
10. In order to sustain a conviction under Section 116 of the Delhi Police Act on the basis of violation of an externment order, the prosecution is required to establish beyond reasonable doubt, first, that there existed a valid and operative externment order against the accused during the relevant period, second, that the accused had knowledge of that order, which normally must be shown either by proof of service or other reliable attending circumstances, third, that the accused was found present within the prohibited area during the subsistence of that order, and fourth, that such presence was without written permission of the competent authority. Each of these elements must be proved by trustworthy evidence. Suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot substitute proof.
11. In the present case, there is on record a copy of externment order dated 24.07.2025 effective from 31.07.2025, marked Ex. AD-2, and the accused has not disputed its genuineness for formal purposes. This dispenses with the need to examine a formal witness to prove the document as such. However, no evidence has been led regarding the actual service of this externment order upon the accused. No process server or official has been examined to Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH CIS No. 24/2025 State v. Aman Chatu DD No. 069 (NabiKarim) U/s: 53/116 DP Act, 1978 7 prove personal service or any mode of communication of the order to the accused. No postal acknowledgment, execution report, or any contemporaneous record of service has been brought on record. The so-called admission by the accused in his statement under Section 294 CrPC is explicitly confined only to genuineness, and by its very terms does not amount to admission of any incriminating fact or of knowledge of the order. The requirement of proving knowledge of the order thus remains on a weak footing.
12. The second crucial limb is the alleged presence of the accused within the prohibited area. The entire case in this regard rests on the oral testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2. Both witnesses candidly admit that the place of alleged apprehension was a public area and that public persons were present, yet no public person was joined in the proceedings. Further, it has come in cross-examination that no written notice was served upon any of the persons who refused to join, whether under Section 160 CrPC or otherwise. The explanation of "paucity of time" is not convincing in the context of an alleged routine beat patrolling and a static accused said to be standing near Kuda Khata. In a case which essentially hinges on the word of police officials and where independent public witnesses were admittedly available, the complete absence of any public witness and the failure even to serve notices on those who allegedly declined to join, materially affects the weight of the prosecution case. RAJ KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR SINGH CIS No. 24/2025 State v. Aman Chatu DD No. 069 (NabiKarim) U/s: 53/116 DP Act, 1978 8
13. There is yet another aspect. Both PW-1 and PW-2 state that they were on beat patrolling duty, and they give timings relating to their departure from the police station, the meeting with the secret informer, and the alleged arrest. However, the relevant patrolling DD entry, that is the departure entry for beat patrolling, has not been produced or proved. Only GD No. 69A relating to the alleged post-fact information about apprehension finds mention as Ex. AD-1 and has been admitted only for genuineness. The duty roster or beat deployment for the date in question, which could show that PW-1 and PW-2 were in fact allotted the concerned beat at the relevant time, has also not been placed on record. In the absence of these foundational records, the version that the police officials were on authorized patrolling in the stated beat at the stated hour rests entirely on their oral assertions.
14. There are also some internal discrepancies in the prosecution evidence. PW-1 has stated that the distance between the police station and the place of arrest was about 300 to 400 metres, whereas PW-2 has stated it to be about one kilometre. PW-1 has mentioned that they left the spot at about 10.00 p.m., while PW-2 has stated that they left the spot at about 10.30 p.m. These variations, viewed in isolation, may appear minor, yet when seen alongside the non-production of the patrolling DD and duty roster, and the admitted non-joining of any independent public witness RAJ KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR SINGH CIS No. 24/2025 State v. Aman Chatu DD No. 069 (NabiKarim) U/s: 53/116 DP Act, 1978 9 despite availability, they add to the overall doubt regarding the exact manner and place of alleged apprehension.
15. No material has been produced to show that the externment cell or the office of the competent authority was approached during investigation to obtain a certified report regarding whether any written permission to enter NCT of Delhi had been granted or refused to the accused during the relevant period. The prosecution thus relies on an assumption that no permission existed, rather than on clear documentary proof from the issuing authority.
16. The law is well settled that criminal conviction must rest on evidence which proves the charge beyond reasonable doubt and that a court cannot act on speculative inferences. Courts have consistently emphasised that where the entire case rests on official testimony without independent support, and there are unexplained omissions in collecting or producing basic corroborative material, such as public witnesses or contemporaneous records, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
17. In the present matter, the prosecution has been unable to satisfactorily establish, first, that the externment order had been duly served or otherwise effectively communicated to the accused so as to prove his knowledge of the same, and second, that the accused was in fact found Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH CIS No. 24/2025 State v. Aman Chatu DD No. 069 (NabiKarim) U/s: 53/116 DP Act, 1978 10 present within the prohibited area in the manner alleged, on the strength of credible and corroborated evidence. The non- joining of public witnesses despite admitted availability, the failure to serve notices upon those who allegedly refused to join, the non-production of the patrolling DD entry and duty roster, and the exclusive reliance on police testimony without independent support, cumulatively create a reasonable doubt about the prosecution version.
18. It is a fundamental rule of criminal jurisprudence that if two views are reasonably possible on the evidence on record, the one that favours the accused must be preferred. Suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof. In the facts of the present case, the chain of proof regarding violation of the externment order remains incomplete. The prosecution has thus failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused knowingly violated a valid and operative externment order by remaining present within the limits of NCT of Delhi without written permission of the competent authority.
19. On a holistic consideration of the material on record, this Court holds that the prosecution has not succeeded in establishing the charge under Section 116 of the Delhi Police Act,1978 against the accused. The accused Aman @ Chatu S/o Suresh @ Ravi is accordingly acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 116 of the Delhi Police Act,1978 in RAJ KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR SINGH CIS No. 24/2025 State v. Aman Chatu DD No. 069 (NabiKarim) U/s: 53/116 DP Act, 1978 11 this kalandra arising from DD No. 069 dated 26.09.2025, PS Nabi Karim.
20. The accused is already on bail pursuant to the earlier order of this Court. The bond already furnished by the accused is accepted for the purposes of Section 437A CrPC read with Section 481 of BNSS and shall remain in force for a period of six months. The accused be released from custody forthwith, if not required in any other case.
21. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information and necessary compliance. File be consigned to the Record Room after due completion of all formalities.
Digitally
RAJ
Announced in open court signed by
KUMAR RAJ
on 13.12.2025 SINGH KUMAR
SINGH
(Dr. Raj Kumar Singh)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-05/Central Delhi/13.12.2025 Note: This judgment contains eleven (11) pages and bears my signature on each page. Digitally RAJ signed by KUMAR RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH (Dr. Raj Kumar Singh) Judicial Magistrate First Class-05/Central Delhi/13.12.2025