Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

State vs Nand Kishore on 27 January, 2012

                                                    DD No.  85 dated 27.10.2010
                                                               PS  Sadar Bazar
                                                               U/S  103 DP Act
                                                      State V/S  Nand Kishore


     IN THE COURT OF SH. NEERAJ GAUR, METROPOLITAN
              MAGISTRATE--III, NORTH, DELHI

Brief reasons for the judgment in the case with following particulars

DD No. 103 DP Act.
PS Sadar Bazar
U/S 103 DP Act
State V/S Nand Kishore
C. No. 33/3

Date of Institution:                 28.10.2010
Date of commission of offence        27.10.2010
Name of the Complainant              SI Udai Pal Singh
Name and address of accused          Nand Kishore s/o Late sh. Lalji
                                     Ram, r/o H. No. 1892, Patali Gali,
                                     Basti Julahan, Sadar Bazar, Delhi.
Offence complained of                U/S 103 DP Act.
Plea of accused                      Pleaded not guilty
Final Order
Date of reserve for orders           27.01.2012
Date for announcing the orders       27.01.2012

                                 Brief Facts

1. The accused was charge-sheeted u/s 103 DP Act with allegations that on 27.10.2010, PW 1 SI Udai Pal Singh and PW 2 Ct. Gaurav Sharma were on patrolling duty and at about 05.00 - 05.30 pm when they were at Pipal wali Gali, Motia Khan they saw the accused carrying one carton box on his shoulder which was containing 08 Kettles printed with "Baltra Cordless Electric". Accused failed to give any satisfactory reply C. NO. 33/3 Page No. 1 DD No. 85 dated 27.10.2010 PS Sadar Bazar U/S 103 DP Act State V/S Nand Kishore regarding the ownership of these Kettles. Thereafter, the Kettles were seized and accused was arrested and personally searched. The instant kalandra was prepared after making the DD entry. Thereafter, the accused was sent up for trial.

2. After necessary compliances, charge u/s 103 DP Act was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

Trial

4. To prove the charge, prosecution examined two witnesses in total whose testimonies are touched upon in brief as under:

(i) PW-1 SI Udey Pal Singh and PW-2 Ct. Gaurav Shamra have deposed that on 27.10.2010 they were on patrolling duty during which at about 5/5.30 pm when they were standing at Peepal Wali Galoi, Motia Khan, they saw the accused carrying one carton box over his shoulder coming from the side of Peepal Wali Gali. On suspicion, SI Udey Pal Singh stopped the accused and checked the carton box which was found containing 8 kettles over which Baltra cordless electric were written. ON inquiry about the ownership of the said kettles, accused could not reply satisfactory. They proved the seizure memo of the kettles as Ex.PW1/A, arrest and personal search memos of the accused as Ex.PW1/B & PW1/C. Thereafter, the accused was taken to hospital for medical examination. Accused was taken PS and DD no. 85B Ex.PW1/D was recorded. PW2 C. NO. 33/3 Page No. 2 DD No. 85 dated 27.10.2010 PS Sadar Bazar U/S 103 DP Act State V/S Nand Kishore proved the kalandra u/s 103 DP Act as Ex.PW1/E. They correctly identified the accused and case property in the court. Thereafter, the PE was closed.

Statement of accused and defence

5. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused U/S 313 CrPC has been recorded today i.e. 20.01.12. He stated that he was innocent and has been falsely implicated. He did not choose to lead any evidence in his defence. Facts in issue:

i) Whether the accused was found in possession of the aforementioned kettles?
ii) Whether there were reasons to believe that it was a stolen property?
iii) Whether the accused failed to account for such possession?

Arguments and appreciation of evidence in the light of legal propositions:

6. PW-1 and PW-2 have supported the prosecution case in totality. They proved the recovery of the aforementioned kettles from the possession of the accused in suspicious circumstances. The accused has failed to put a case even through cross-examination of PWs that he could reasonably have the possession of the kettles. There is no explanation for the possession of eight number of kettles. These circumstances provide the reasons to believe that the C. NO. 33/3 Page No. 3 DD No. 85 dated 27.10.2010 PS Sadar Bazar U/S 103 DP Act State V/S Nand Kishore kettles were stolen property.

7. The identity of the accused has also been established in the court. After the prosecution has discharged its primary burden of proving the case, the onus shifted on the accused to rebut the charges. Moreover, the accused was under the burden of giving the account for such possession of the aforementioned property which, the accused has failed to discharge.

8. In view of the above discussion, prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubts that the accused was in possession of property Ex.P1, which was believed to be a stolen property and the accused failed to account for such possession. The accused is accordingly found guilty u/s 103 of DP Act and is convicted u/s 103 DP Act.

9. Arguments on sentence shall be heard separately.

Announced in open court (Neeraj Gaur) today i.e. on 27.01.2012 Metropolitan Magistrate -III(N) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

C. NO. 33/3 Page No. 4

DD No. 85 dated 27.10.2010 PS Sadar Bazar U/S 103 DP Act State V/S Nand Kishore 27.01.2012 Pr: Ld. APP for the State.

Accused on bail.

Statement of accused u/s 313 CrPC recorded separately today itself. Final arguments heard.

Vide my separate Judgment announced in the open court today, accused has been convicted for the offence u/s 103 of DP Act. Arguments on sentence also heard.

Convict prays for a lenient view stating that he is 35 years of age and is living a lawful and moral life. He is working with Hero Honda Workshop and is earning a meager amount of Rs. 5000/- pm to support his family. He further states that he suffered a custody of one day.

In the given facts and circumstances, I am of the view that convict has bright chances of reformation and he should not be sent behind the bars. Accordingly, he is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 100/- and to undergo the imprisonment already undergone by him in incarceration. In default of payment of fine, SI for two days. Fine paid.

Sentenced accordingly.

The surety stands discharged. Bail bond stands cancelled. Original documents, if any, be returned.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Neeraj Gaur) MM-3/North Delhi 27.01.2012 C. NO. 33/3 Page No. 5