Delhi District Court
State vs . Virender Narain Saxena on 25 June, 2013
FIR No. 174/00 S/V Virender Narain Saxena etc
IN THE COURT OF SH. D.K. JANGALA: ACMMNW/ROHINI COURT/DELHI
State Vs. Virender Narain Saxena
FIR No. 174/00
PS: Mukherjee Nagar
U/s 411 IPC r/w section 52 of Indian Post Office Act.
Case ID No. 02404R017582000
JUDGEMENT
A) Sl. No. of the case : 4/2
B) The date of commission : 16.05.00
of offence
C) The name of the complainant : S.I. Bhagwati Prasad
D) The name & address of accused :1. Virender Narain Saxena S/O late Sh. Prahlad Narain R/O C1/263, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi.
( Since expired)
2. Anand Kumar S/O Sh. Chandgi Ram R/O S61/144, near MCD School, Indira Smriti Camp, Nehru Nagar, P.S. Sri Niwas Puri.
E) Offences complained of : U/s 411 IPC r/w section 52 of Indian Post Office Act.
F) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
G) Final order : Acquitted
H) The date of such order : 25.06.13
Date of Institution: 15.07.2000
Page No. 1 of 20
FIR No. 174/00 S/V Virender Narain Saxena etc
Judgment reserved on: 07.06.2013
Judgment announced on: 25.06.2013.
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGEMENT:
1. In the present case the FIR for commission of the offence punishable U/S
409/411/120B IPC was registered in P.S. Mukherjee Nagar on 16.05.00. The prosecution has alleged that on 16.05.00 at about 3.45 pm in front of Batra Cinema, Mukherjee Nagar the accused Virender Narain Saxena was found in possession of four pay order and four bank drafts amounting to Rs. 63,950/ which were stolen during transition through postal department. It is alleged that accused Virender Narain Saxena has retained the same knowing the same to be stolen property and committed the offence punishable U/S 411 IPC. It is further alleged that the accused was found in possession of stolen four pay orders and four bank drafts in the name of different persons which had been secreted by him being the employee of postal department posted at Gol Dakkhana , New Delhi . It is alleged that the accused Virender Narain Saxena has also committed the offence punishable U/S 52 of Indian Post Officer Act.
2. It is further alleged that on 16.05.00 at about 3.45 pm the accused Anand Kumar was found in possession of two stolen bank drafts for a total sum of Rs. 8000/, which were stolen from the postal authority during transition from the postal department, which he retained or having reason to believe the same to Page No. 2 of 20 FIR No. 174/00 S/V Virender Narain Saxena etc be stolen property . It is alleged that the accused Anand Kumar also committed an offence punishable U/S 411 IPC.
3. The matter was investigated by the Crime Branch officials and after completion of the investigation the charge sheet was filed against both the accused persons namely Virender Narian Saxena and Anand Kumar . After completion of the necessary formalities on 14.01.02, the charge for commission of the offence punishable U/S 411 IPC and section 52 of Indian Post Officer Act was framed upon the accused Virender Kumar Saxena to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Another charge for commission of the offence punishable U/S 411 IPC was also framed upon the accused Anand Kumar to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. It is also pertinent to mention that during trial accused Virender Narain Saxena has expired and in view of his death the proceedings stands abated vide order dated 09.07.10 against him.
5. The prosecution to prove its case has examined 17 PWs. The relevant and material extract of the evidence to prove the charge against accused Anand Kumar, are as under: PW1 Sh. Kedar Dutt deposed that on 09.05.00 he got prepared the bank draft of Rs.3000/ from State Bank of India, Bihar University campus Branch, Muzaffarpur in favour of his son Sh. Pardeep Chander Panth . He deposed that the said draft was sent with a letter to his son in Delhi. He deposed that his son Page No. 3 of 20 FIR No. 174/00 S/V Virender Narain Saxena etc received only a registered letter sent alongwith the draft EX PW 1/A but the draft was not received by his son and the same was stolen by somebody . He deposed that he informed the Muzaffarpur Bank and post office regarding the missing of draft and got issued the duplicate bank draft. The counsel for the accused Anand Kumar gave nil opportunity his crossexamination of PW7.
6. PW2 Sh. Amarjeet Singh deposed that in the month of May 2000 he was posted as ASP at GPO. PW2 is the witness relating to the accused Virender Narain Saxena.
7. PW3 HC Ompal Singh is the formal witness who recorded the FIR on the basis of rukka . PW3 proved the copy of FIR and endorsement as EX PW 3/A and EX PW 3/B.
8. PW4 Ct. Ved Prakash deposed that on 16.04.00 he joined the investigation of the present case alongwith other police officials. He deposed that the secret informer gave the information to the IO that one employee of the post office namely Virender Narain Saxena in the gang of sale of stolen bank draft would come over there. He deposed that at about 2.30 pm they reached at the Batra cinema and thereafter at about 3.30 pm one person Virender Narain Saxena reached and the informer pointed out that person. He deposed that after five minutes one person whose name was revealed as Anand Kumar also reached at the Batra Cinema. PW4 further deposed that the accused Virender Narain Saxena took out certain documents form the right pocket of his pant and Page No. 4 of 20 FIR No. 174/00 S/V Virender Narain Saxena etc handedover the same to accused Anand Kumar. He deposed that during this exchange both the accused persons were apprehended . He deposed that IO prepared the rukka and sent Ct. Ashok Kumar for registration of the FIR. . He deposed that the personal search memo and the arrest memo of the accused persons were prepared which are EX PW 4.A to EX PW 4/H. PW4 correctly identified the accused and the case property in the court. . PW4 proved the demand draft as recovered from the possession of the accused Anand Kumar as EX P2 and EX P3. During crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for the accused Anand Kumar, PW4 denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered from the accused Anand Kumar. It is denied that the accused Anand Kumar is falsely implicated in the present case. It is denied that the accused Anand Kumar was lifted from his house.
9. PW5 Ct. Ashok Kumar also deposed that he joined the investigation alongwith other police officials. PW5 deposed that on receipt of the secret information the raiding party was prepared and they went to the spot at Batra Cinema at about 2.30 pm. He deposed that at about 3.30 pm one person came there and set down on the stair of the Batra Cinema . He further deposed that after five minutes another person also came there and both started exchanging certain documents and thereafter both were apprehended. During crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for the accused Anand Kumar, the PW5 admitted that Ct. Baljeet had apprehended and took the personal search of accused Anand Kumar. He Page No. 5 of 20 FIR No. 174/00 S/V Virender Narain Saxena etc deposed that he did not offer their search before searching the accused. He deposed that he did not have any report of the theft regarding two drafts recovered from the accused Anand Kumar. He deposed that these drafts were not sealed in the pullanda.
10. PW6 Ct. Baljeet Singh is also the recovery witness . PW6 also deposed that on receipt of the secret information thereafter raiding party was prepared and both the accused were apprehended. During crossexamination PW6 admitted that the recovered bank draft were not sealed and they were taken into possession as it is .
11. PW7 SI Ram Kishan is also the recovery witness. He also deposed on the same lines as deposed by other recovery witnesses. During crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for the accused Anand Kumar, the PW7 admitted that no FIR was available on that day regarding theft of the bank draft received from the accused . He also admitted that they did not offer their search to the accused persons.
12. PW8 Inspector Ranvir Singh is also the recovery witness who deposed on the same lines as deposed by the other recovery witnesses.
13. PW9 Sh. Prem Chand Hundey deposed that he was working in State Bank of India since last 32 years. He brought the application through which a demand draft of Rs. 3000/ was issued in the name of Abhishek Dubey from their branch on 08.05.00. The copy of the same is proved as EX PW 9/A. . Page No. 6 of 20
FIR No. 174/00 S/V Virender Narain Saxena etc
14. PW10 Sh. Ashok Kumar Assistant Manager of SBI deposed that as per record the demand draft of Rs. 3,700/ was issued by their branch in the name of Kunal on 08.05.00. The PW1 proved the said demand draft as EX PW 10/C.. He deposed that the said demand draft was issued on the application of Shekhar and the record pertaining to the issuance of the said demand draft is proved as EX PW 10/A to EX PW 10/C.
15. PW11 Sh. S.K. Sinha - Deputy Manager SBI produced the record pertaining to the issuance of DD bearing No. 37125 for a sum of Rs. 3,000/ in the name of Sh. Pardeep Chandra Pant. The said demand draft is proved as EX PW 11/A.
16. PW12 Mohd. Baseer Ahmed is the Chief Post Master who proved the sanction for prosecution against Virender Narain Saxena .
17. PW13 Sh. Radha Krishnan - Divisional Manager of State Bank of India produced the entire record of draft of Rs.8,000/ bearing No. 797572 dated 13.05.2000 issued by their branch in favour of Sh. K. Srinivasan, the application moved for issuance of the said draft is proved as EX PW 13/A. PW13 deposed that the complaint was received from Sh. K. Srinivasan in which it was stated that the said demand draft was sent by him through speed post to Delhi but the same was not reached there and he also requested for issuance of duplicate draft. He deposed that thereafter the duplicate demand draft was issued which was encashed. During crossexamination it is admitted that the original demand draft was not encashed as per their record.
Page No. 7 of 20
FIR No. 174/00 S/V Virender Narain Saxena etc
18. PW14 Sh. S.K. Sharma retired Chief Post Master proved the sanction for prosecution of accused Virender Narain Saxena U/S 52/53 of Indian Post Office Act.
19. PW15 Sh. Jyoti Prakash Shaw deposed that in the year 2000 his father had sent one draft of Rs. 5000/ to him through courier but the same was not received by him. He deposed that his father got stopped the payment of the said draft in the concerned bank. He deposed that after 4/5 years his father received the payment in lieu of said draft from the concerned bank.
20. PW16 Sh. Uday Prakash Shaw deposed that in the year 2000 he got prepared the demand draft of Rs. 5000/ from State Bank of India in the name of his son Sh. Jyoti Prakash Shaw and sent through registered speed post alongwith letter. He deposed that his son informed him that he had received the letter in the envelope but the DD was missing. He deposed that he informed the State Bank of India and stopped the payment of demand draft. He deposed that after about 3 years he received the payment of the aforesaid demand draft from the concerned SBI Branch. During crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for the accused Anand Kumar, the PW16 stated that the police did not record his statement during investigation. It is stated that he do not have any receipt for sending the demand draft to Delhi through registered post.
21. PW17 Inspector Bhagwati Prasad is the IO of the case. PW17 deposed that on 16.05.2000 he was posted as SI at AATS Crime Branch, Adarsh Nagar, Page No. 8 of 20 FIR No. 174/00 S/V Virender Narain Saxena etc Delhi. He deposed that he alongwith other police officials were on patrolling in the area . He deposed that when they reached in the Kingsway Camp Market, one secret informer met them and told that some people are indulging in theft of bank drafts and one post office employee Virender Narain saxena is the member of the gang . He deposed that at about 3.30 pm one person namely Virender Narain Saxena came there and sat on the stairs in front of Batra Cinema Hall and after about five minutes another person came and met Virender Narain Saxena and they exchanged somethings between them. He deposed that both the accused persons were apprehended and from his right pocket of wearing trouser Rs.4,000/ were recovered alongwith two pay orders and four bank drafts in the name of different persons. He deposed that search of accused Anand Kumar also led to recovery of two bank drafts issued by SBI one in the name of Jyoti Prakash amounting to Rs.5000/ and another was in the name of Abhishek Dubey amounting to Rs.3000/. . He deposed that both the accused persons were arrested and the case property was seized and after completion of the investigation the charge sheet was filed on record.
22. During crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for accused Anand Kumar, the PW17 admitted that he took about half an hour in briefing the members of the raiding party and requesting the public persons to join the raiding party. He deposed that he did not request any public person at the spot for joining the raiding party. He deposed that they were keeping the watch and when accused Anand Kumar Page No. 9 of 20 FIR No. 174/00 S/V Virender Narain Saxena etc came after five minutes and exchanged something between them, then the raid was conducted. It is admitted that during the disclosure accused Anand disclosed the name of one Bobby and he made efforts to search the said Bobby but he could not be traced. It is admitted that there was a police booth which was at a distance of about 25 meters from the spot . It is stated that no police official was requested to join the investigation. . It is admitted that he did not see the recovered amount of Rs.4,000/. It is denied that he has falsely implicated the accused in the present case.
23. Statement of the accused Anand Kumar was recorded U/S 313 CrPC whereby the accused denied the story of the prosecution and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is stated that he has been lifted from his house on 15.05.00 and thereafter falsely implicated in the present case. It is stated that nothing was recovered from his possession.
24. I have carefully perused the material on record and have gone through the submissions of Ld. APP for the state and Ld. Counsel for the accused.
25. It is submitted by Ld. APP for the state that in the present case the prosecution has examined 17 witnesses to prove the charge framed against the accused . It is submitted that PW4 Ct. Ved Parkash, PW5 Ct. Ashok Kumar, PW6 Ct. Baljeet singh , PW7 S I Ram Kishan , PW8 Inspector Ranbir Singh and PW16 Inspector Bhagwati Prasad are the recovery witnesses and have corroborated the testimony of each other. Therefore, it is prayed that the accused Anand Page No. 10 of 20 FIR No. 174/00 S/V Virender Narain Saxena etc Kumar may kindly be convicted for the alleged offence.
26. On the other hand it is submitted by Ld. counsel for the accused that in the present case there is no material on record to convict the accused for commission of the alleged offence. It is submitted that the prosecution has not placed on record anything to prove the dishonest intention of the accused. It is submitted that the prosecution has not placed on record any document to show that the accused was having knowledge of stolen property. Therefore, it is prayed that the accused may kindly be acquitted for commission of the alleged offence.
27. In the present case the accused Anand Kumar is charged for commission of the offence punishable U/S 411 IPC. The provision of section 411 IPC is reproduced as under: "Dishonestly receiving stolen property: Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."
28. The prosecution needs to prove the following things to prove the charge U/S 411 IPC :
(a) That the property should be stolen property:
(b) That the stolen property must be found in possession of the accused : Page No. 11 of 20
FIR No. 174/00 S/V Virender Narain Saxena etc
(c) That the accused has dishonestly received or retained, knowing or having reason to believe that the said property is the stolen property.
29. (a) That the property should be stolen property: In the present case PW9 Sh. Prem Chand Hundey - Deputy Manager of State Bank of India AMY Mujafarpur has deposed that the draft EX P2 was issued from their branch in the name of Sh. Abhishek Dubey. PW10 Sh. Ashok Kumar Datta Assistant Manager deposed that the demand draft EX PW 7/C was issued from their branch on the application of Mr. Shekhar . PW11 Sh. S.K. Sinha Deputy Manager deposed that the demand draft bearing No. 371254 was issued in the name of Sh. Pardeep Chandra Pant. He deposed that the said demand draft was issued on the application of Sh. K.D. Pant . He deposed that the complaint was made by Sh. K.D. Pant regarding missing of the said demand draft. PW16 Sh. Uday Prakash Shaw proved the demand draft bearing No. 736875 of Rs.5,000/ as EX P3 which was sent by him alongwith letter to his son through registered post. PW15 Sh. Jyoti Prakash Shaw deposed that his father sent a demand draft of Rs.5,000/ to him through courier but the same was not received by him and his father got the payment stopped from the concerned bank.
30. The definition of the stolen property is given in Section 410 CrPC, which is reproduced as under: " Stolen property: Property, the possession o whereof has Page No. 12 of 20 FIR No. 174/00 S/V Virender Narain Saxena etc been transferred by theft, or by extortion, or by robbery , and property which has been criminally misappropriated or in respect of which [ ***] criminal breach of trust has been committed, is designated as " stolen property', [ whether the transfer has been made , or the misappropriation or breach of trust has been committed, within or without [India]]. But, if such property subsequently comes into the possession of a person legally entitled to the possessions thereof, it then cease to be stolen property".
The perusal of this definition reveals that the property which has been misplaced would not come within the definition of stolen property. Only the property whose possession has been transferred by theft, or by extortion, or by robbery , and property which has been criminally misappropriated or in respect of which criminal breach of trust has been committed, is designated as stolen property. In the present case the prosecution has not produced any witness to prove that the possession of the demand draft has been transferred by way of theft , or by extortion or by robbery. Even though it is stated by the recovery witnesses i.e. police official that they have received the information that the gang is operating in respect of the stolen bank drafts taken away from transition through post office but the prosecution has not produced any witness to prove that the said demand drafts were actually stolen from the post office. Even though the PW14 Sh. S.K. Saxena and PW15 Sh. Jyoti Prakash have deposed that they have sent the DD by way of post which did not reach to the Page No. 13 of 20 FIR No. 174/00 S/V Virender Narain Saxena etc destination and it was misplaced but none of them lodged the report regarding commission of theft of DD, and rather they have deposed that DD was misplaced. None of the public witnesses examined by the prosecution have deposed that the pay orders were stolen from the post office during transition. Neither any documentary evidence nor any oral testimony is produced by the prosecution to prove that the pay orders/ DD were stolen from the post office. The missing pay order /demand draft does not come within the definition of stolen case property. Only a property whose possession thereof has been transferred with dishonest intention by theft, extortion , robbery or criminal misappropriation comes within the definition of stolen property.
31. In the present case it is the admitted case of the prosecution that there is no police report lodged by any of the complainant regarding theft of demand draft/ pay order . Neither the beneficiary of the pay orders nor the applicants of the pay orders have lodged any police complaint regarding theft of these pay orders. Even the post office officials did not lodge any FIR regarding theft of these demand drafts. Therefore, in the present facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove on record that the demand draft/. Pay orders EX P2 and P3 were stolen case property as defined U/S 410 IPC.
32. (b) That the stolen property must be found in possession of the accused :
Page No. 14 of 20
FIR No. 174/00 S/V Virender Narain Saxena etc In the present case the prosecution has examined 17 witnesses to prove the charge framed . However, the majority of the witnesses are not related to the recovery of the case property from the possession of the accused Anand Kumar. PW4 Ct. Ved Parkash, PW5 Ct. Ashok Kumar, PW6 Ct. Baljeet singh , PW7 S I Ram Kishan , PW8 Inspector Ranbir Singh and PW16 Inspector Bhagwati Prasad are the recovery witnesses and all the recovery witnesses are the police officials. All the recovery witnesses have deposed that the accused Virender Narain Saxena took out certain documents from the pocket of his pant and handedover the same to accused Anand Kumar and during this exchange of documents both the accused persons were apprehended on the pointing out of the secret informer. The demand draft recovered from the possession of the accused Anand Kumar are P2 and P3 . In the present case all the recovery witnesses are the police officials. The recovery was alleged to have been effected outside the Batra Cinema, Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi in the day time. It is no doubt true that the place of recovery is a public place frequented with the public persons. The time of arrest of the accused persons is stated to be around 3.30 pm which is day time and the availability of the public persons at the spot of recovery and arrest are also not in doubt. In the present case it has come on record that despite availability of the public witnesses they were not joined in the investigation. The accused persons were apprehended from the public place frequented with the public persons but despite availability of them no Page No. 15 of 20 FIR No. 174/00 S/V Virender Narain Saxena etc public person has been joined in the investigation by the IO. The non joining of the public person at the time of recovery and arrest is throwing shadow of doubt upon the story of prosecution. The prosecution has failed to explain any justified ground for non joining of the public witnesses despite availability of them at the time of recovery and arrest at the day time. On this issue I have relied upon the judgment reported as Anoop Joshi v/s State,1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314(HC), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under:
"18. It is repeatedly laid down by this court that in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evident that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shopkeepers could have been persuaded to joint he raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC."
In case law reported as Sadhu Singh V/s State of Punjab, 1997(3) Crimes 55 the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court observed as under: "In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the Page No. 16 of 20 FIR No. 174/00 S/V Virender Narain Saxena etc prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
6. In the present case, the State examined two witnesses namely, Harbans Singh ASI who appeared as PW1 and Kartar Singh PW2. Both the witnesses supported the prosecution version in terms of the recovery of opium from the person of the petitioner, but there was no public witness who had joined. It is not necessary in such recoveries that public witnesses must be joined, but attempt must be made to join the public witnesses. There can be cases when public witnesses are reluctant to join or are not available. All the same, the prosecution must show a genuine attempt having been made to join a public witness or that they were not available. A stereotype statement of nonavailability will not be sufficient particularly when at the relevant time, it was not difficult to procure the service of public witness. This reflects adversely on the prosecution version".
In view of the above discussions, I am of the considered opinion that the non joining of public persons despite availability of them is throwing shadow of doubt upon the story of the prosecution regarding recovery of the said demand draft EX P2 and P3 from the possession of accused Anand Kumar.
33. (c) That the accused has dishonestly received or retained, knowing or having reason to believe that the said property is the stolen property: When a person is charged for commission of the offence punishable U/S 411 IPC and the circumstances does not raise the presumption that he received the property knowing the same to be stolen, the said person cannot be convicted of Page No. 17 of 20 FIR No. 174/00 S/V Virender Narain Saxena etc the offence merely because he was found in possession of the stolen property. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove that the case property was stolen and the accused dishonestly received it having reason to believe the same to be stolen property. The onus to prove the dishonest intention of the accused is upon the prosecution. The onus to prove the charge is upon the prosecution and the prosecution cannot shift this onus upon the accused. It must proved that the accused has knowledge or reason to believe that the article which has been received or retained by him was a stolen article. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. It is not for the accused to prove how he came into possession of the property which is stated to be stolen. The prosecution must establish its case on its own. The prosecution must prove that there was sufficient act or reason for convicting the accused . The presumption of guilt cannot be raised against the accused from the exculpatory statement made by co accused against him.
34. In the present case the prosecution has tried to prove the dishonest intention of the accused on the basis of disclosure statement of co accused Virender Narain Saxena and disclosure of the accused Anand Kumar. The disclosure statements of accused persons are inadmissible by virtue of provision of Section 25 & 26 of Indian Evidence Act. Any statement given to the police official is an inadmissible. Any confessional statement made by the accused persons while in the custody of the police official is also inadmissible. Therefore, Page No. 18 of 20 FIR No. 174/00 S/V Virender Narain Saxena etc the disclosure statement of accused Virender Narain Saxena and accused Anand Kumar are inadmissible by virtue of provision of Indian Evidence Act. The prosecution cannot take the benefit of section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act as the recovery of the alleged stolen demand draft was already effected before recording the disclosure statement. Nothing incriminating has been recovered on the basis of the disclosure statement of the accused persons, therefore, same also does not come within the exception of section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.
35. In the present case the necessary circumstances for drawing the presumption U/S 114 of Indian Evidence Act also does not exist . The prosecution has also failed to prove that the articles recovered from the possession of the accused were stolen property. The prosecution has also failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had exclusive possession of the said articles. The recovery witnesses themselves deposed that immediately on exchange of some documents by accused Virender Narain Saxena to accused Anand Kumar, both the accused persons were apprehended . Therefore, even as per the deposition of the recovery witnesses the accused was not in exclusive possession of the said stolen property. Therefore, presumption U/S 114 of Indian Evidence Act cannot be drawn against the accused. In the present case the prosecution has failed to prove the dishonest intention of the accused in receiving or retaining the said property. The prosecution has failed to prove that accused Anand Kumar had knowledge or reason to believe Page No. 19 of 20 FIR No. 174/00 S/V Virender Narain Saxena etc that the articles which has been received or retained was a stolen article
36. In view of the above discussions, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the necessary ingredients for commission of the offence punishable U/S 411 IPC. The prosecution has failed to prove that the property recovered from the possession of accused Anand Kumar comes within the definition of stolen property as defined U/S 411 IPC. The prosecution has also failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the recovery of the pay order EX P2 and P3 from the possession of accused Anand Kumar. The prosecution has also failed to prove the dishonest intention of the accused in receiving the said articles from the accused Virender Narain Saxena.
37. Therefore, in view of the above discussions, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge frame upon the accused for commission of the offence punishable U/S 411 IPC. Accordingly accused Anand Kumar is acquitted for commission of the offence punishable U/S 411 IPC.
The bail bond and surety bond of the accused is extended for a period of six months U/S 437 ( A) CrPC.
Announced in the open court ( Devender Kr. Jangala) on 25.06.13 ACMM( N/W): Rohini Courts : Delhi Page No. 20 of 20 FIR No. 174/00 S/V Virender Narain Saxena etc Page No. 21 of 20