Delhi District Court
State vs Subhash Chand on 9 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presided over by - Ms. Medha Arya, DJS
Cr. Case No. : 1419/2025
FIR No. : 104/2025
Police Station : Saket
Section(s) : 174A IPC
In the matter of -
STATE
Vs.
Subhash Chand @ Babloo
S/o Sh. Parkash Chand
Village Badher, Post Mohan Ghati
Tehsil Joginder Nagar
Distt. Mandi (HP) .... Accused
1.Name of Complainant : Ahlmad of concerned Court
2. Name of Accused : Subhash Chand @ Babloo
3. Offence complained of or proved : 174A IPC
4. Plea of Accused : Not guilty
5. Date of commission of offence : 14.12.2011
6. Date of Filing of case : 25.02.2025
7. Date of Reserving Order : 27.06.2025
8. Date of Pronouncement : 09.07.2025
9. Final Order : Acquitted Argued by - Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. Bhavit Sharma, Ld. LADC for accused.
State vs. Subhash Chand @ Babloo FIR No. 104/2025, PS: Saket Page 1 of 8 BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION FACTUAL MATRIX -
1. It is the case of prosecution that accused Subhash Chand @ Babloo S/o Sh. Parkash Chand failed to appear in the Court of Ld. Special Judge (NDPS)/ASJ (South), Saket despite several summons and warrants, and because of this reason, aforesaid Court of Ld. Special Judge-NDPC/ASJ (South), Saket, where proceeding under FIR no. 56/08, PS Lodhi Colony were going on against him, had issued the process u/s 82 CrPC against him which was duly executed, whereafter he was declared a proclaimed offender vide order dated 14.12.2011. It is alleged that the accused thus committed the offence punishable u/s 174A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "the IPC").
2. After completion of investigation, subject charge sheet was filed. Accused was summoned to face trial. When he entered appearance, copy of the charge sheet was supplied to him in compliance of Section 207 CrPC. Thereafter, formal charge for the offence punishable u/s 174A IPC was framed against the accused vide order dated 11.03.2025. He pleaded not guilty thereto, and claimed trial. Proceeding then progressed to the stage of recording of PE.
3. At the stage of PE, prosecution examined four witnesses:
PW Name Nature of Testimony
PW1 HC Amit He proved the arrest of the accused vide
State vs. Subhash Chand @ Babloo
FIR No. 104/2025, PS: Saket Page 2 of 8
(Formal witness) memo Ex PW1/A. He correctly identified the
accused in his testimony. He was duly cross-
examined by ld. LADC for accused and then discharged.
PW2 HC Vasdev He testified that he had moved the
(First IO)
application Ex PW2/A for production
warrants of accused, and that he arrested him in Court vide memo Ex PW1/A. He also proved the disclosure statement of the accused, Ex PW2/C. After due cross-
examination by accused, he was discharged.
PW3 HC Anil He deposed that he had filed the charge sheet (Second IO) of the present case, but material part of the investigation was conducted by the first IO i.e. HC Vasdev. He correctly identified the accused. He was duly cross-examined by ld.
LADC for accused.
PW4 Retired SI Kuldeep He deposed that on 10.12.2011, he received Singh process u/s 82 CrPC for execution, and in (Process Server) order to execute it, he visited the residence of accused Subhash Chand @ Babloo R/o Village Bader, Post Office Mohan Ghati, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, where he met Prakash Chand, father of the accused, who informed him that the accused had not State vs. Subhash Chand @ Babloo FIR No. 104/2025, PS: Saket Page 3 of 8 been residing there since long. He deposed that neither father of accused, nor anyone else in the locality were found to be conversant with the whereabouts of the accused. He deposed that he then affixed the copy of the notice outside the house of the accused, gathered people, and made proclamation of process u/s 82 CrPC. He further deposed that he affixed a copy of the said process outside the Court, and prepared his report, Ex PW4/A.
4. The accused admitted, in terms of Section 294 CrPC, the genuineness of:
1 The present FIR Ex A1 2 Certificate u/s 65B IEA Ex A2 3 Order of Ld. ASJ (NDPS), Saket dated 14.12.2011 Ex A3 4 Order of Ld. ASJ (NDPS), Saket dated 28.01.2025 Ex A4 (Colly) & 30.01.2025 4.1 As such, the corresponding witnesses, all formal in nature were dropped from the list of witnesses to be examined by the prosecution. No other witnesses were examined by prosecution, and PE was then closed.
5. In order to accord an opportunity to the accused to explain all the incriminating circumstances appeared against him at trial, his statement was State vs. Subhash Chand @ Babloo FIR No. 104/2025, PS: Saket Page 4 of 8 then recorded u/s 313/281 CrPC. Therein, he stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case, as no process was served upon him properly. Upon a specific query, he stated that he does not wish to lead DE in the affirmative.
6. Proceedings then progressed to the stage of final arguments. Final arguments heard. Record perused. Considered.
7. The offence punishable u/s 174A IPC prescribes punishment for non-
appearance of an accused in a Court in pursuance to a proclamation issued u/s 82 CrPC. Whenever the Court comes to a conclusion that a person is concealing himself or has absconded, despite warrants being issued against him, a written proclamation can be issued by the Court requiring the appearance of the accused before the Court. In order to ensure the publication of the proclamation, certain requirements have been stipulated in the provision itself,
i) The proclamation is to be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town/village.
ii) It has to be affixed at the house or homestead of the person, and a copy thereof has to be affixed on the courthouse.
iii) A clear period of thirty days has to be given to the accused from the date of the publication to appear in the Court.
8. With the aforesaid legal position in mind, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses shall now be scrutinized. The fulcrum of the case is the testimony of process server SI Kuldeep Singh, who deposed as PW4. In his examination in chief, he testified that on 10.12.2011, he received State vs. Subhash Chand @ Babloo FIR No. 104/2025, PS: Saket Page 5 of 8 process u/s 82 CrPC for execution, and in order to execute it, he visited the residence of accused Subhash Chand @ Babloo R/o Village Bader, Post Office Mohan Ghati, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, where he met Prakash Chand, father of the accused, who informed him that the accused had not visited the house since long, and his whereabouts were not known to him. PW4 also testified that whereabouts of accused could not be traced despite due enquiries. He deposed that he then affixed copy of the notice outside the house of the accused, and he proclaimed the process u/s 82 CrPC. He further deposed that he affixed a copy of the said process outside the Court, and prepared his report, Ex PW4/A.
9. During his cross examination, the process server/PW4 admitted that no DD entry of his departure is on record. Additionally, during his cross examination, it was suggested to the witness that he never visited any spot of the accused. While this suggestion was duly denied by the witness, it is seen that the witness never proved any arrival or departure entry to corroborate his version that he had indeed visited the addresses of the accused for the execution of the process u/s 82 CrPC. Chapter 22 Rule 49 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, provides that the hour of arrival and departure on duty at or from a police station of all enrolled police officers of whatever rank, whether posted at the police station or elsewhere, with a statement of the nature of their duty shall be entered vide a separate entry and this entry shall be made immediately on arrival or prior to the departure of the officer concerned and shall be attested by the latter personally by signature or seal. In absence of the departure and arrival entry of the police officials in the aforesaid manner, their presence at the spot cannot be believed. Reference State vs. Subhash Chand @ Babloo FIR No. 104/2025, PS: Saket Page 6 of 8 can be placed upon Rattan Lal Vs. State 1987 (2) Crimes 29 Delhi High Court wherein it has been observed:
"if the investigating agency deliberately ignores to comply with the provisions of the Act, the courts will have to approach their action with reservations. The matter has to be viewed with suspicion if the provisions of law are not strictly complied with and the least that can be said is that it is so done with an oblique motive. This failure to bring on record, the DD entries creates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution version and attributes oblique motive on the part of the prosecution."
10. PW4 testified that he had made due enquiries qua the whereabouts of accused from his father, and other residents of the locality. His testimony in this regard was controverted by a contrary suggestion. Now, report relied upon by the witness Ex PW4/A reveals that statements of some people, purportedly residents of the same locality are annexed with the same, but neither there ID proofs are on record, nor were they examined by prosecution. As such, veracity of the said statements, and consequently the report, is not cogently established.
11. The fact that report Ex PW1/4 is not accompanied by any photographs reflecting affixation of process either at the Court house, or at the house of accused, further makes the testimony of PW4 doubt-worthy.
12. In view of the gaps noticed in the testimony of PW4, the execution of process u/s 82 CrPC cannot be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. As such, it cannot be held with certainty that the process u/s 82 CrPC was executed duly, or that it was executed at the house of the accused.
13. By examining the remaining witnesses, the prosecution has not State vs. Subhash Chand @ Babloo FIR No. 104/2025, PS: Saket Page 7 of 8 brought on record anything inculpatory against the accused on record. The witnesses have deposed qua the arrest of the accused, and the subsequent proceedings undertaken against him, post such arrest, after he was already declared absconder. Their testimonies do not in any way prove the due execution of the process u/s 82 CrPC, being formal in nature. As such, it is seen that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused, beyond reasonable doubt.
14. In view of the above discussion, accused Subhash Chand @ Babloo S/o Sh. Parkash Chand is acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 174A IPC.
15. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance with Section 437A CrPC.
Digitally
Pronounced in open Court on signed by
09.07.2025 in the presence Medha Medha Arya
Date:
of accused. Arya 2025.07.09
15:35:35
+0530
(Medha Arya)
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi
09.07.2025
State vs. Subhash Chand @ Babloo
FIR No. 104/2025, PS: Saket Page 8 of 8