Delhi District Court
State vs Jagbir Singh on 20 September, 2007
1 FIR No.159/96
PS Keshav Puram
IN THE COURT OF SH. AMIT BANSAL, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, ROHINI COURTS , DELHI
FIR NO. 159/96
U/S 420/406 IPC
State Vs Jagbir Singh
P.S. Keshav Puram , Delhi
JUDGEMENT U/S 355 Cr. P.C.
a) Sl. No. Of the case 02401R0044981998
b) The date of commission of Year 1995-96
the offence
c) Name of the complainant Sh. S.C. Dutta, Assistant
Registrar, M.D. University,
Rohtak, Haryana.
d) Name,parentage & address Jagibr Singh S/o Randhir
Singh, R/o H. no. 560, Dichaun
of accused
Kalan, Delhi.
e) Offence Complained of or U/S 420 IPC
proved
f) The plea of the accused and Pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial. Statement of accused u/s
his examination
313 CrPC has been dispensed
with as there are no
incriminating circumstances
appearing in prosecution
evidence against the accused.
g) The Final order Acquitted u/s 420 IPC
h) The date of such order 20/9/2007.
Date of institution : 22/04/1998
Date on which judgment
has been reserved :20/9/2007
BRIEF FACTS/ STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE
DECISION:-
1. Accused Jagbir Singh is facing trial on the allegations of the prosecution that during the year 1995-96 he representing himself as the agent of M.D. University, Rohtak and principal 2 FIR No.159/96 PS Keshav Puram of P.T. College, Tri Nagar, Delhi dishonestly induced the aspirants of B.Ed Courses for the session 1995-96 and fraudulently collected money by assuring them to get admission in B. Ed courses at M.D. University, Rohtak for the year 1995-96 without having any unlawful authority and thereby he cheated by his said act the aspirants Tripta, Indira etc and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 420 IPC.
2. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed in the court U/s 420/406 IPC against the accused Jagbir Singh. Copies of charge sheet & documents were supplied to the accused free of costs.
3. After hearing the arguments, the charge U/s 420 IPC was framed against the accused by my Ld Predecessor on 21/10/03, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution has examined total three (03) witnesses in support of its case i.e PW1 Tripta, PW2 Inspector Ranbir Singh (IO of the case) and PW3 Satbiri Devi. Perusal of record shows that thereafter sufficient and numerous opportunities were given to the prosecution to lead evidence with last and final opportunities on 19/7/06,6/11/06, 28/2/07 and on 31/7/07.
It was also directed that all the remaining witnesses be 3 FIR No.159/96 PS Keshav Puram summoned through DCP (NW), however, perusal of record shows that no material witness could be served. The material witness i.e Indira (one of alleged duped persons) could not be served and as per report on summons she did not live at the given address. Witness Ct Jai Prakash could not be served as despite efforts his present place of posting could not be known. Witness/complainant S.C. Dutta also could not be served and as per report he had retired from his job. As per report on summon, witness Poonam Gupta also did not live at the given address. Hence, in these circumstance prosecution evidence was closed on 20/9/07.
5. Statement of accused u/s 313 CrPC has been dispensed with as there are no incriminating circumstances appearing in prosecution evidence against the accused.
6. I have heard the final arguments and carefully perused the record.
7. PW1 Tripta is a material witness being one of the alleged cheated person. However, perusal of evidence of PW1 shows that she has absolutely not supported the case of prosecution at all. PW1 deposed that she did not know anything about this case and that she had appeared in the court only on receipt of summons. PW1 was cross-examined by Ld APP for the state after 4 FIR No.159/96 PS Keshav Puram obtaining permission from court and in cross-examination PW1 denied the suggestion that she had given Rs. 5000/- bank draft and Rs. 1200/- service charges to accused, owner of P.T. College, Kanhiya Nagar for admission for B.Ed correspondence course admission in M.D. University. PW1 further denied that she had told the police that legal action should be taken against accused. PW1 also denied having made statement u/s 161 CrPC (Mark-X1) to the police. PW2 Inspector Ranbir Singh is IO of the case who has proved personal search memo of accused as Ex. PW2/A and the disclosure statement of accused has been proved as Ex. PW2/B. PW3 Satbiri Devi is a formal witness who deposed that on 1/5/1995 she rented out one room on the ground floor of H. no. 3832/A/8 Kanhiya Nagar to accused and copy of rent agreement is mark-'A'. In cross-examination, PW3 deposed that accused had opened a security guard office at the said premises and accused left the premises in July.
Hence, it is clear that there are no incriminating circumstances appearing in prosecution evidence against the accused. Material witness PW1 Tripta has not at all supported the case of prosecution. Other material witnesses i.e Indira and Poonam Gupta (alleged cheated persons) could not be served 5 FIR No.159/96 PS Keshav Puram to depose in this case. Complainant S.C. Dutta also could not be served to depose in the court. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, the statement of accused u/s 313 CrPC has been dispensed with as there are no incriminating circumstances appearing in prosecution evidence against the accused. Accordingly, prosecution has failed to prove any allegations or charge against the accused and therefore, accused is acquitted u/s 420 IPC in the present case. Bail bonds of accused are cancelled and his surety is discharged. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON 20/9/2007 ( AMIT BANSAL) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI 6 FIR No.159/96 PS Keshav Puram State V/s Jagbir Singh 20/9/07 Present: Ld Substitute APP for the state.
Accused on bail with counsel Sh.Rajbir Malik. Only one formal witness W/HC Nirmala is present who was Duty Officer and no other PW is present.
Ld Substitute APP for the state seeks adjournment. Adjournment opposed.
Perusal of record shows that case is quite old of year 1996 and numerous and sufficient opportunities have been given to the prosecution to lead evidence with last and final opportunity to the prosecution on 19/7/06, 6/11/06, 28/2/07 and on the LDOH i.e 31/7/07.
It was directed that all the remaining PWs be summoned through DCP NW and today only one formal witness i.e Duty Officer is present.
Summons of PW Indra have been received back with the report that she is not living at the given address.
PW Ct Jai Prakash could not be served as his present posting could not b e ascertained.
7 FIR No.159/96
PS Keshav Puram As per report on B/W of PW S.C. Dutta, he has retired from his services on 31/8/07.
As per report PW Poonam Gupta also does not live at the given address.
Accordingly, as all the material witnesses could not be served through DCP NW, therefore, there are no grounds for further adjournment and moreover, as mentioned above even various times last and final opportunities was given to the prosecution. Hence, PE stands closed.
Heard.
There are no incriminating circumstances appearing in prosecution evidence against the accused and hence statement of accused u/s 313 CrPC is dispensed with.
Final arguments heard.
Vide my separate judgment, accused is acquitted under section 420 IPC. Bail bonds are cancelled. Surety is discharged. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the Open court on 20/9/07 Amit Bansal MM/Rohini/Delhi/20/9/07