Delhi District Court
State vs . Gagan Prakash. on 8 October, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDRA SINGH
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : WEST
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
FIR No. 212018
ID 40582018
U/S. 188 IPC
PS Patel Nagar
State Vs. Gagan Prakash.
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. No of case 40582018
2. Date of commission of offence 10.01.2018
3. Name of complainant ASI Noor Hasan
4. Name of accused Gagan Parkash
s/o. Sh. Keser Das
r/o; H.No. T146/2, Near Lal
Mandir, Bajeet Nagar, Delhi.
5. Offence complained of U/s. 188 IPC
6. Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
7. Final order Convicted
8. Date of such order 08.10.2018
1. FACTS IN BRIEF/ CASE SET UP BY PROSECUTION: Accused has been sent for trial on the allegations that on 10.01.2018, at about 6.30 pm, at H.No. T146/2, near Lal Mandir, State Vs. Gagan Parkash; FIR No. 21/18; PS PN 1/5 Baljeet Nagar, Delhi, he was found to have kept a tenant without police verification in violation of the notification issued by the ACP concerned.
2. MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS: After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed by the police against accused. Cognizance of the offence was taken and the accused was summoned. Copy of the chargesheet was supplied to the accused and the matter was adjourned for arguments on charge.
3. NOTICE FRAMED AGAINST THE ACCUSED: Notice for offence punishable u/s. 188 IPC was given to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. EVIDENCE LED BY THE PROSECUTION: In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined one witness. The testimony of the said witness in brief is as under :
(a)PW1 is ASI Noor Hasan. PW1 is the IO. PW1 deposed that on 10.01.2018, he was posted at PS Patel Nagar as ASI. On that day, he was on patrolling duty and tenant verification duty alongwith HC Suresh in the area and while on verification duty when reached at H.No. T146/2, near Lal Mandir, Baljeet Nagar, Delhi, one Chandan Kumar me them and on inquiry he told that he was residing in the said house as tenant for the last about 2 and half State Vs. Gagan Parkash; FIR No. 21/18; PS PN 2/5 hour and the landlord of the said house was Gagan Parkash. When he asked accused to produce the documents regarding police verification of the tenant, he told him that he had not got done the police verification of the said tenant. On the basis of the allegations which is in violation of the order of ACP. The same is already Mark X. After that he prepared the tehrir Ex. PW1/A and on the basis of which the present FIR was registered. After that accused was arrested, vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/B. Thereafter, he obtained the complaint under Section 195 of Cr.P.C.. The same is Ex. PW1/C.
(b)STATEMENT OF ACCUSED: Statement of accused was recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. wherein the incriminating evidence was put to the accused. In the said statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C, accused has admitted the allegations however stated that he was not aware about the Notification. Accused had not led any evidence in his defence.
5. ARGUMENTS OF LD. APP FOR STATE AND ACCUSED: Ld APP for the State had argued that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Ld APP for the State had also argued that the factum of violation of the order of ACP concerned by accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, accused is State Vs. Gagan Parkash; FIR No. 21/18; PS PN 3/5 liable to be convicted in this case.
On the other hand, accused has stated that he was not aware about the notification and has stated that he had already got done the verification.
6. REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
(i) Before proceeding further, I need to discuss the relevant legal propositions applicable on to the facts of the case. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that the prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence & that in order to prove its case on judicial file, the prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs whereby it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused. Further settled it is, that the primary burden of proof for proving the offences in a criminal trial rests on the shoulders of the prosecution, which burden never shifts on to the accused.
(ii) It is no longer Res Integra that accused is entitled to benefit of every reasonable doubt(s) appearing qua the material facts of the prosecution's story whereby such reasonable doubt(s) entitles the accused to acquittal.
(iii) In the light of the above discussed legal position, I shall now step forward to divulge my opinion on the respective fate State Vs. Gagan Parkash; FIR No. 21/18; PS PN 4/5 of the accused.
(iv) The testimonies of PW1, who is material witness had deposed that on inquiry from the accused, accused failed to show/ produce the police verification form qua the tenant. Despite cross examination of the PW1 nothing substantial in the favour of the accused came on record. The prosecution has successfully brought on record that the landlord had not complied with the order of MHA and violated the order of concerned ACP and had not submitted the tenant verification form in the police station. Accused has also admitted the registration of the present FIR. Thus, the testimony of PW1 clearly proves that the accused has committed the offence u/s. 188 IPC.
7. CONCLUSION: For the reasons assigned hereinabove, I am of the view that the prosecution has successfully proved the offence u/s. 188 IPC against the accused. Accordingly, accused is convicted for the Digitally signed offence u/s 188 IPC. by JITENDRA JITENDRA SINGH SINGH Date:
2018.10.09 14:36:19 +0530 Judgment dictated and JITENDRA SINGH pronounced in the open Court ACMM:WEST DISTT:DELHI i.e. the 8th October of , 2018 (This judgment consists of 5 pages) State Vs. Gagan Parkash; FIR No. 21/18; PS PN 5/5 IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDRA SINGH ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : WEST TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI FIR No. 212018 ID 40582018 U/S. 188 IPC PS Patel Nagar State Vs. Gagan Prakash.
ORDER ON POINT OF SENTENCE
Present: Ld APP for State.
Convict in person.
I have heard Ld APP for State as well as Convict on the point of sentence and have perused the record.
It is submitted by Convict that he is first time offender and only bread earner in his family. It is further submitted by the convict that he is not a previous convict. Convict has prayed for a lenient view.
On the other hand Ld APP for State submitted that the convict be sentenced to maximum punishment as prescribed for the offence in question.
In the present case convict has been convicted for offence punishable u/s. 188 IPC. No previous conviction has been alleged or proved against convict. The convict is not involved in any such case, as State Vs. Gagan; FIR No.21/18; PS PN 2/2 stated by her. Convict is only sole bread earner in his family. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the accused is facing trial for keeping a tenant without police verification. I am of considered view that ends of justice would be met if the convict is admonished u/s. 3 of The Probation of Offender's Act, 1958.
Announced in open Court JITENDRA SINGH i.e. the 8th October of, 2018 ACMM:WEST DISTT:DELHI State Vs. Gagan; FIR No.21/18; PS PN 2/2