Delhi District Court
State vs . Gulshan & Another. on 15 March, 2018
IN THE COURT OF Ms. SHIVALI SHARMA
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
EAST: KARKARDOOMA COURT: DELHI
e-FIR No. : 035993/16
PS : Pandav Nagar
U/s : 379/411/482/34 IPC
STATE Vs. GULSHAN & ANOTHER.
JUDGMENT
A Unique ID No. of the 4157/17
case
B Name of the Sh. Ankit Modi
complainant
C Name of the accused 1. Gulshan
& his parentage and S/o Rajender Singh
address R/o H- No. 12/223, Trilok Puri,
Delhi
2. Vikas
S/o Nonu Chand
R/o H- No. 5/96, Trilok Puri,
Delhi
D Offence Complained of U/s 379/411/482/34 IPC E Date of commission of 31.08.2017 offence.
F Date of Institution 27.11.2017
G Offence Charged U/s 411/34 IPC
H Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty.
I Order Reserved on 15.03.2018
J Date of 15.03.2018
Pronouncement
K Final Order Acquittal u/s 411 IPC
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION PROSECUTION'S CASE 1 The story of the prosecution is that on 08.12.16 between 03- FIR NO. 35993/16 STATE VS. GULSHAN & ORS. PAGE NO.1/5 04.00 am, infront of H- No. B-16, Gali No. 7, Shashi Garden, New Delhi, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I within the jurisdiction of PS Pandav Nagar the bike make Bajaj Pulsar 220F, 2011 Model Blue Black colour having registration number T-N-22CX-7445, engine no. DKGB VD-47366, chasis no. MD-2D-H- DK-ZZ-UCD- 33218 was stolen by some unknown person and same was recovered from the possession of accused Gulshan and Vikas on 31.08.2017 and thereby commission of offences punishable U/s 379/411 IPC is alleged.
CHARGE 2 After investigation, charge-sheet under section 173 Cr. P.C was filed on 27.11.2017 u/s 379/411/482/34 IPC against the accused persons.
3 On the basis of the charge-sheet and after compliance of Sec.207 Cr.P.C., a charge for the offence punishable under section 411 IPC was framed against both the accused persons and read out to them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on 19.01.2018.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE 4 To bring home the guilt against the accused, prosecution has cited 06 witnesses in all. However, none of the witness has been examined.
5 Summons were issued to the complainant Ankit Modi at all his available addresses through SHO / IO as well as DCP East. His mobile number and e-mail was also mentioned on the processes. However, despite efforts the process could not be executed. Infact as per the report, his father was contacted through the FIR NO. 35993/16 STATE VS. GULSHAN & ORS. PAGE NO.2/5 mobile number but he refused to disclose the address or telephone number of complainant Ankit Modi. Accordingly, complainant has been dropped from the list of witnesses being untraceable vide order dated 15.03.2018.
JUDICIAL RESOLUTION 6 The accused persons have been charged for offence u/s 411 IPC which provides punishment for possession of stolen property. Before a person can be convicted for offence u/s 411 IPC prosecution is required to prove that the property recovered from him is actually a stolen property. In the present case only complainant Ankit Modi is competent to prove that his bike allegedly recovered from the accused persons was stolen by someone. However, the complainant has not appeared in the witness box to prove his complaint in this regard. Thus, the factum of theft of the bike allegedly shown as recovered from the accused persons remains unproved. Accordingly, the said bike cannot be said to be the stolen property for possession of which accused persons can be convicted u/s 411 IPC.
7 Remaining witnesses are police officials who took part in investigation. Since the star witness of the prosecution i.e. the complainant has already been dropped being untraceable, I find it to be a futile exercise to continue with the trial. Ld. APP for the State submits that the remaining witnesses be summoned and examined. However, in my opinion in the absence of the testimony of complainant to prove the theft of the motorcycle , no fruitful purpose would be served by examining the remaining witnesses. Hence, PE is closed. Statement of accused persons FIR NO. 35993/16 STATE VS. GULSHAN & ORS. PAGE NO.3/5 are dispensed with as there is no incriminating evidence against them.
8 In the opinion of the court, this is a fit case to close PE and acquit accused Gulshan and Vikas of offences u/s 411 IPC, so as to protect their right of speedy justice as incorporated in Article 21 of Indian Constitution.
In "P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka" AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 1856 ( Coram : 7 S. P. BHARUCHA, C.J.I., S. S. M. QUADRI, R. C. LAHOTI, N. SANTOSH HEGDE, DORAISWAMY RAJU, Mrs. RUMA PAL, A. PASAYAT, JJ.) the Honorable Supreme Court while commenting upon the right to speedy justice observed:
"22. Is it at all necessary to have limitation bars terminating trials and proceedings? Is there no effective mechanism available for achieving the same end? The Criminal Procedure Code, as it stands, incorporates a few provisions to which resort can be had for protecting the interest of the accused and saving him from unreasonable prolixity or laxity at the trial amounting to oppression. .................. The Constitution Bench in A.R. Antulay's case referred to such power, vesting in the High Court (vide paras 62 and 65 of its judgment) and held that it was clear that even apart from Article 21, the Courts can take care of undue or inordinate delays in criminal matters or proceedings if they remain pending for too long and putting to an end, by making appropriate orders, to further proceedings when they are found to be oppressive and unwarranted." (emphasis supplied) "30........................................ In conclusion we hold:-
(1) ....................
(2)......................
(3) ....................
(4) .....................
FIR NO. 35993/16 STATE VS. GULSHAN & ORS. PAGE NO.4/5 (5) The Criminal Courts should exercise their available powers, such as those under Sections 309, 311 and 258 of Code of Criminal Procedure to effectuate the right to speedy trial. A watchful and diligent trial Judge can prove to be better protector of such right than any guidelines. In appropriate cases jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution can be invoked seeking appropriate relief or suitable directions".
9 Accordingly, PE stands closed, SA is dispensed with and accused persons namely Gulshan and Vikas are acquitted of offences u/s 411/34 IPC as charged against them.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15.03.2018 (SHIVALI SHARMA) ACMM (EAST)/KKD/15.03.2018 Certified that this judgement contains 5 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(SHIVALI SHARMA)
ACMM (EAST)/KKD/15.03.2018
Digitally signed by
SHIVALI SHARMA
SHIVALI Location: East
District
SHARMA Karkardooma
Courts Delhi
Date: 2018.03.15
15:29:22 +0530
FIR NO. 35993/16 STATE VS. GULSHAN & ORS. PAGE NO.5/5