Delhi District Court
State vs . Vijay Kumar on 27 September, 2007
IN THE COURT OF SH. SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : M.M. DELHI
STATE VS. VIJAY KUMAR
FIR NO: 1517/99
P. S. NDLS
JUDGEMENT U/S 355 Cr.P.C
.:
a) Serial No. of the case : 203/03
b) Date of offence : 10.9.99
c) Offence complained of : 25/54/59 of Arms Act.
d) Name of complainant : SI Kali Ram
e) Name of accused, his : Vijay Kumar S/o Rama Nand
parentage & residence R/o H. No. 383, Gali No. 8,
Saheed Bhagat Singh Colony,
Karawal Nagar, P.S. Gokulpuri,
Delhi.
f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) Final order : Acquitted
h) Date of institution of case : 8.7.20003
i) Date on which case reserved : 13.9.2007
for judgment
j) Date of judgment : 13.9.2007 (after lunch)
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION:
1 Briefly stating, as per case of prosecution, the accused has been facing trial on 10..9.99 at about 4.20 pm at near out gate, Ajmeri Gate side NDLS, within the jurisdiction of PS NDLS he was found in possession of a buttondar knife in violation of Delhi Administration notification Mark A and Contd..........
/2/ thus a case for offence punishable u/s 25/54/59 of Arms Act has been registered against the accused. The IO after completion of investigation has filed the chargesheet before the court.
2 The accused was supplied with copies of chargesheet and on the basis of material on record, he was charged for offence punishable u/s 25/54/59 of Arms Act vide order of this court dated 3.9.2001. When the charge was readover and explained to accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3 To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined as many as 2 witnesses in support of its case.
4 The first witness examined by prosecution was PW1 HC Govind Singh, who was the second IO of the case and has stated that on the aforesaid date time and place he reached alongwith Ct. Daya Paraksh , where first IO SI Kali Ram met and he handedover the the proceeding done by him alongwith accused and buttandar knife. He has proved the preparation of site plan ex. PW1/A and arrest of accused vide personal search memo Ex. PW1/B and C. 5 PW2 was HC Rajender singh who deposed about registration of the case and proved the copy of same vide Ex. PW2/A. NO other PW has been examined by prosecution in support of its case and accordingly PE was closed.
Contd..........
/3/ 6 Statement of accused was recorded on 13.9.2007, wherein accused has denied all the incrimination evidence when the same was put to him and deposed that it is a false case and he had been falsely implicated in this case. However the accused has refused to lead evidence in his defence. 7 I have heard the submissions of APP for the State and Counsel for the accused and carefully gone through the material produced on record. 8 The prosecution has put the allegations against the accused for keeping unlawful possession of one buttondar knife which is in contravention of the Notification of the Government of NCT of Delhi. To this effect prosecution examined only two witnesses out of six witnesses as cited in the list of witnesses, The witnesses left out to be examined are SI Kali Ram, the IO of the case, MHC(M), Ct. Daya Parkash, and concerned clerk from DAD.
9. From the perusal of material produced on record I come to the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused. As per witnesses accused was apprehended alongwith buttondar knife near out gate, Ajmerigate side , NDLS, which is crowded place and many public persons were available there, but, IO has not made any effort to join any public witness which certainly hampered the case of the prosecution. To this effect I rely upon observations taken in various cases Contd..........
/4/ such as " The State of Punjab Vs. Gurmej Singh" 1991 (2), Criminal Report 361, " The State of Punjab Vs. Gurnam Singh" 1991 (3), Criminal Report 412 (C.C. Cases) [HC 345] wherein it was held that : " That failure of the Investigation Officer to join independent witnesses of the locality in investigation sound the death knell of the prosecution case set up against the accused, conviction based by the learned trial court on the statements of the police and excise officials cannot be sustained in and the accused is entitled to secure an acquittal on this score." 10 Further , the MHC(M) has not been examined by the prosecution to prove the deposit of the buttondar knife in the Malkhana and that the same remained in sealed and intact position in his custody, which certainly creates doubt in the prosecution story and benefit of same goes to the accused. I also rely upon the observations taken in the case titled as " Paramjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab" High Court of Punjab & Haryana (1), RCR 268 wherein it was observed that :
" If no independent witness was joined - sample sealed at the spot - no evidence that sample sealed was deposited in Malkhana, accused acquitted given benefit of doubt"
11 Further it is also pointed out to the notification MarkA that the description of the knife was given in the length and breadth, however, from the deposition of the PWs and the sketch of the knife the breadth of the knife Contd..........
/5/ was not given by the IO which is also a material technical defect, so the benefit of the same shall be given to the accused. To this effect I rely upon the observations taken by Hon'ble Ms. Justice Usha Mehra in the case titled as " Sh. Bishnu Vs. State" 1996 JCC 469 that: Arms Act, 1959, Sec. 27 - Conviction under - Prohibition specified in the notification dated Feb. 17, 1979 issued by Delhi Admn. Prosecution failed to prove description of knife conviction cannot be sustained."
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion and facts and circumstances of the case I come to the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused. Hence, accused Vijay Kumar S/o Rama Nand is hereby acquitted for the offence in question. Bail bonds of accused are cancelled. Surety is discharged. Case property be disposed of in accordance with law. Let file be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY 13.9.2007 (SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI IN THE COURT OF SH. SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : M.M. DELHI STATE VS. SHEIKH LATIF ETC.
FIR/CC NO: 56/98P. S. RPF/DLI JUDGEMENT U/S 355 Cr.P.C . :
a) Serial No. of the case : 171/03
b) Date of offence : 4.10.98
c) Offence complained of : 3RP (UP) Act.
d) Name of complainant : ASI Gokul Ram Meena
e) Name of accused, his : 1 Sheikh Latif S/o Sheikh
parentage & residence Mansur R/o Village Samsadal,
Distt. Madnipur, Kolkutta, West
Bengal. ( Already convicted
vide order dated 5.8.99)
2 Asan Khan S/o Fawad Khan
R/o Village Samsadal,
Distt. Madnipur, Kolkutta, West
Bengal. Present Address.
Rented hour No. 024/141,
Gandhi Nagar, Delhi.
f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) Final order : Convicted
h) Date of institution of case : 26.6.2003
i) Date on which case reserved : 20.8.2007
for judgment
j) Date of judgment : 13.9.2007
Contd..........
/2/
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION:
1 Briefly stating, as per case of prosecution, the present accused
namely Asan Khan alongwith co accused Sheikh Latif ( already convicted vide order dated 5.8.99) has been facing trial on the allegation that on 4.10.98 at about 5.45 hours at PF Sadar Bazar Delhi within the jurisdiction of RPF. Delhi Main, he was apprehended by RPF staff and was found in possession of two packages having railway marka No. 375202 and 373210 belonging to the Railway Department and reasonably suspected of having been stolen or obtained unlawfully and thus a case for offence punishable u/s 3 of RP(UP) Act, 1996 has been registered against the accused. The IO after completion of investigation has filed the chargesheet before the court. 2 Copies of complaint and other documents were supplied to the accused and case was fixed for precharge evidence vide order dated 7.1.99 During precharge evidence, prosecution examined PW1 Raj Singh, Parcel Clerk, PW2 ASI Gokul Ram Meena and Hari Ram as PW3, after that precharge P.E. was closed. Thereafter, charge for offence U/S 3RP (UP) Act was framed against the accused on 27.5.99 which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3 PW1 Raj Singh Parcel Clerk has deposed that on 4.10.98 has proved the the stealing of the two packages during his duty time and has proved the theft memo in this regard Ex. PW1/A. Contd..........
/3/ 4 PW2 ASI Gokul Ram Meena was the EO of the case and has deposed that on 4.10.98 he alongwith Ct. Janam Singh and Ct. Daljit Singh were on patrolling duty . On that day at about 5.40 hours passenger train GPP2 departed from PF No. 12/15 towards Sadar Bazar. They saw two booked packages in a railway coach. He further deposed that they boarded the rear coach of the train and at about 5.45 hours train reached at Sadar Bazar Railway Station where STE Satpal Singh came down with the accused persons namely Sheikh Latif and Asan Khan and alongwith the booked packages. Both the accused have failed to give any satisfactory reply regarding the possession of the goods recovered in their possession. Same were taken into possession vide Ex. PW2/A . Both accused were interrogated and arrested vide memo Ex. PW2/B, their disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex. PW2/D and E and point out memo was also prepared at the spot Ex. PW2/F. The confessional statement of accused persons was recorded vide Ex. PW2/G and H. He further deposed that he collected the unloading and loading particulars of the said packages. He has correctly identified the accused as well as the case property when the same was produced before him during recording of his statement.
5 PW3 was Hair Ram, who was owner of the said two packages and has deposed that on 25.9.98 he has booked that said two packages of tea Contd..........
/4/ from Assam and has proved the same vide Ex. PW3/A and PW3/B and has further proved the on 31.10.98 he has identified the aforesaid booked package which was stolen vide identification memo Ex. PW3/C 6 PW4 Ct. Daljit Singh and PW6 Ct. Jana Singh are the witnesses of the recovery and both of them have fully supported the case of the complainant . Both the aforesaid witnesses has reiterated the versions as stated by PW2 ASI Gokul Ram Meena and have also proved the document prepared during the investigation as exhibited by PW2 above. Both of them have correctly identified the accused as well as the case property during recording of their statement before the court. 7 PW5 was B.C Sharma , the Parcel Clerk from Tinsukhia Assam and has proved the booking of said packages from Tinsukhia after receiving appropriate fare for the same vide bill No. 373210 and has proved the entry and receipt to this effect Ex. PW3/A and B. 8 PW7 Satpal Singh has deposed that on 4.10.98 he was posted as STE at Delhi (m) on that day he was on duty at Sadar Bazar when he was checking ticket to passengers in train No. DPP2 two persons get down from train , I checked their ticket at platform they were found ticket less and found in possession of two packages booked consignment of railway in the meanwhile ASI Gokul Ram Meena /PW2 alongwith staff reached there and Contd..........
/5/ on enquiry accused persons reveled their name as Asan Khan and Sheikh Latif. He further deposed that he handedover both the accused to them and the case property was seized in his presence vide Ex. PW2/A. 9 The accused Asan Khan in his statement recorded on 20.8.2007 has denied to commit the offence in question as well as denied all the incriminating evidence as false and incorrect and refused to lead any evidence in his defence.
10 I have heard the submission of Ld. APP and of accused in person and have carefully gone through the record. 11 As stated above to bring home the guilty of the accused , the prosecution had examined 7 witnesses in support of its case. All of them have fully support the case of the prosecution. The prosecution examined all its material/star witnesses i.e. PW2 ASI Gokul Ram Meena who was EO of the case, PW4 Ct. Daljit and PW6 Ct. Janam Singh who are the other witnesses who were present with the IO during investigation of the case. Moreover the star witness of the prosecution is PW7 STE Satpal Singh, who has categorically established the date, time and place of the incident on which the both accused have been apprehended with the booked packages of bearing railway marka. He has also correctly identified the accused as well as the case recovered from the possession of accused persons on the date of Contd..........
/6/ incident. The testimony of all the aforesaid witnesses remained unrebutted as accused has failed to cross examine all of them either at the pre charge evidence or in after charge evidence. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, I have no reason to disbelieve the testimony of aforesaid as they have proved the case of the prosecution in well manner. There are no material contradiction in the statement of aforesaid witnesses. The accused has simply denied the case of the prosecution in his statement but has refused to lead any evidence in his defence regarding possession of case property on the date of incident which also create doubt on the credibility of the accused.
12 In view of the aforesaid discussion I am of the view that prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence accused Asan Khan S/o Fawad Khan is hereby convicted for offence U/S 3 RP(UP) Act.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY 13.9.2007 (SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI IN THE COURT OF SH. SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : M.M. DELHI STATE VS. SHEIKH LATIF ETC.
FIR/CC NO: 56/98P. S. RPF/DLI ORDER ON SENTENCE:
Present: APP for State.
Accused Asan Khan on bail.
The accused has been convicted for offence punishable u/s 3 RP (UP) Act vide separate judgment of this court dated 13.9.2007..
Heard the accused on the point of sentence.
Accused submitted that he belonged to very poor family. He further submitted that he have also remained in J/C in this case. He further submitted that he is only earing member of his family and prayed for a lenient view.
Considering the nature of the offence and socio, economic condition of the convict, he is sentenced to 4 months RI with fine Rs. 5000/ , I/D 15 days u/s 3RP(UP) Act. Case property be disposed off according to the court of law. Benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C is also awarded to accused. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY 13.09.2007 (SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI IN THE COURT OF SH. SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : M.M. DELHI STATE VS. NASIR HUSSAIN @ RICHA FIR NO: 437/06 P. S. NDLS JUDGEMENT U/S 355 Cr.P.C .:
a) Serial No. of the case : 11/07 b) Date of offence : 12.12.2006 c) Offence complained of : 25/54/59 of Arms Act. d) Name of complainant : SI Sohan Lal e) Name of accused, his : Nasir Hussain @ Richa parentage & residence S/o Mannu Khan R/o Neem Tabla, Pakka Talab, PS Tamluk, Distt. Madnipur, Kolkutta, West Bengal. f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty g) Final order : Convicted h) Date of institution of case : 20.3.2007 i) Date on which case reserved : 1.9.2007 for judgment j) Date of judgment : 13.9.2007) BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION: 1 Briefly stating, as per case of prosecution, the accused has been
facing trial on the allegation that on 12.12.2006 at about 6.05 pm at South Yard near Railway Office Nizamuddin side within the jurisdiction of P.S. Contd..........
/2/ NDLS he was found in possession of Deshi Katta, measuring the length of barrel as per seizure memo mark A and thus a case for offence punishable u/s 25/54/59 of Arms Act has been registered against the accused. The IO after completion of investigation has filed the chargesheet before the court. 2 The accused was supplied with copies of chargesheet and on the basis of material on record, he was charged for offence punishable u/s 25/54/59 of Arms Act vide order of this court dated 17.4.2007. When the charge was readover and explained to accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3 To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined as many as all the 9 witnesses in support of its case. 4 PW1 HC Jile Singh, PW2 Ct. Deen Dayal and PW4 SI Sohan IO of the case, are the witnesses of recovery of case property from the possession of accused on the date time and place of the incident. All of them have fully supported the case of the prosecution and have correctly identified the accused as well as the case property when the same were produced before them during recording of their statement. All of them have deposed that on 12.12.2006 the present accused Nasir alongwith co accused Netai ( regarding whom separate proceeding were done) , whom they correctly Contd..........
/3/ identified had been apprehended on an secret information at South Yard Nizamuddin side Railway office. All the witnesses have proved the recovery of one deshi katta from the right dub of the pant of accused and one live cartridge from the right pocket of pant of accused. They have further proved the total length of the country made pistol as 24 cm out of which length of body of the country made pistol was 5 cm and barrel was 13 cm and handle was 6 cm having wooden strip affixed on both the side. The said country made pistol was of iron made. There was a trigger button by which the katta was used to open and closed. The katta was found loaded with one life cartridge. The said live cartridge was removed from the katta and it was measured and found to be of 6 cm and at the bottom of the work KF 12 was written. All of the them have further proved preparation of sketch of pistol vide Ex. PW1/A seizure of same vide memo Ex. PW1/B with seal SLM. They further deposed that HC Zile Singh/PW1 has conducted the proceeding regarding the other accused namely Netai. PW4 has further deposed that he prepared the rukka Ex. PW4/A and got the FIR registered through Ct. Deen Dayal who came back at spot alongwith ASI Ashok Kumar and he handedover the further investigation of the case to him. 5 PW2 was Ct. Ombir he has deposit about deposition of pullanda of country made pistol alongwith live cartridge sealed with seal of SLM Contd..........
/4/ from the MHC(M) to FSL and after deposition of same handedover the receipt of same to MHC(M).
6 PW5 SI Om Parkash has proved the sanction vide Ex. PW5/A to prosecute the accused u/s 25 Arms Act and identified the signature of the then DCP Sh. Neeraj Thakur and copy of the dispatch register as Ex. PW5/B. 7 ASI Ashok Kumar was the second IO of the case and has deposed that on 12.12.2006 the further investigation of the case was handedover to him he reached at spot where first IO SI Sohan Lal handedover the proceeding done by him alongwith accused and sealed pullanda. He has proved the preparation of site plan ex. PW6/A and arrest of accused vide personal search memo Ex. PW2/A and B. He has also proved recording of disclosure statement of accused vide Ex. PW2/C. He has also deposed that after taking sanction and after completion of investigation he prepared the challan.
8 PW7 HC Davis VJ was the Duty officer posted on the day of incident and has proved the registration of the FIR in the present case as well as proved the copy of same vide Ex. PW7/A. PW8 HC Anil Kumar was the MHC(M) posted on the date of incident and has proved the deposition of sealed pullanda sealed with seal of SLM in the Malkhana vide Sl. No. 3569 Contd..........
/5/ in register No. 19. He has further proved that case property was sent to FSL on 22.12.2006 through Ct. Ombir vide R/C No. 101/21 and on 27.2.2007 case property received from FSL through Ct. Ramphal. 9 PW9 Sh. K. C. Varshney, Sr. Scientific Officer ( Ballistic) FSL, Rohini, Delhi has deposed that on 22.12.2006 one sealed parcel sealed with the seal of SLM was received in his office in the present case alongwith forwarding letter and the same was marked to him for examination and opinion. The seal of the parcel was intact and as per the specimen seal. On opening the parcel, one country made pistol of 12 bore and two cartridges of 12 bore were taken out and marked as F1 , A1 and A2 respectively by him. PW9 has further deposed that he examined the exhibits. The country made pistol marked F1 was in working condition and test fire conducted successfully , the cartridges marked A1 and A2 were live and one cartridge mark A1 was test fired through the country made pistol mark F1. The country made pistol mark F1 was a fire arm and the cartridges marked A1 and A2 were ammunition as defined in the Arms Act. He has proved his detailed report dated 26.2.2007 in this regard vide Ex. PW9/A . He has correctly identified the case property when the same was produced before him during recording of his testimony.
Contd..........
/6/ 10 Statement of accused was recorded on 1.9.2007, wherein accused has denied all the incrimination evidence when the same was put to him and deposed that it is a false case and he had been falsely implicated in this case. However the accused has refused to lead evidence in his defence. 11 I have heard the submissions of APP for the State and C accused in person and carefully gone through the material produced on record. 12 The prosecution has put the allegations against the accused for keeping unlawful possession of country made pistol alongwith live cartridge and to this effect prosecution examined all the nine witnesses , who have fully supported the case of the prosecution. The prosecution examined all its material/star witnesses i.e. PW1 HC Zile Singh, PW2 Ct. Deen Dayal and first IO of the case SI Sohan Lal as PW4, all of them have fully supported the case of the prosecution and has proved the date, time and place of the incident and apprehension of the accused alongwith country made pistol and live cartridge. The testimony of all the aforesaid witnesses remained unrebutted as accused has failed to cross examine all of them when they were examined in court. Further the PW9 Sh. K.C. Varshney, Sr. Scientific Officer has proved that the recovered country made pistol mark F1 was a fire arm and the cartridge marked A1 and A1 were ammunition as defined in the Arms Act. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, I have no reason to Contd..........
/7/ disbelieve the testimony of aforesaid as they have proved the case of the prosecution in well manner. There are no material contradiction in the statement of aforesaid witnesses. The accused has simply denied the case of the prosecution in his statement but has refused to lead any evidence in his defence regarding possession of case property on the date of incident which also create doubt on the credibility of the accused. 13 Hence in view of the above discussion and the facts and circumstances of the case, I have no hesitation in my mind to coming into conclusion that it was only accused who on the date time and place of the incident has committed the offence in question. Accordingly the accused Nazir Hussain @ Richa S/o Mannu Khan is hereby convicted for offence punishable u/s 25/54/59 of Arms Act.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY 13.9.2007.
(SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI IN THE COURT OF SH. SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : M.M. DELHI STATE VS. NASIR HUSSAIN @ RICHA FIR NO: 437/06 P. S. NDLS ORDER ON SENTENCE Present: APP for State.
Accused in J/C The accused has been convicted for offence punishable u/s 25/54/59 of Arms Act vide separate judgment of this court dated 13.9.2007.
Heard on the point of sentence.
The accused/convict submits that he belongs to a very poor family. He further submits that he is in J/C in this case since 12.12.2006. He further submits that he is the only earning member of his family and prayed for a lenient view.
Considering the nature of the offence and socio, economic condition of the accused, accused is sentenced to 9 months RI in this case U/s 25/54/59 of Arms Act . Benefit of Section 428 Cr. P.C. is awarded to the accused. Case property be disposed off in accordance with law.
File be consigned to Record Room. Copy of order be given to the accused, free of cost.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY 13.9.2007 (SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI IN THE COURT OF SH. SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : M.M. DELHI STATE VS. RAJU FIR NO: 58/07 P. S. HNDRS JUDGEMENT U/S 355 Cr.P.C .:
a) Serial No. of the case : 208/07
b) Date of offence : 7.6.2007
c) Offence complained of : 379/411
d) Name of complainant : Raju
e) Name of accused, his : Raju S/o Namesh Singh R/o
parentage & residence Vegabond, Patri, New Delhi
Railway Station, Ajmeri Gate,
side.
f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
g) Final order : Convicted
h) Date of institution of case : 21.6.2007
i) Date on which case reserved : 14.9.2007
for judgment
j) Date of judgment : 14.9.2007 ( after lunch)
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION:
1 Briefly stating, as per case of prosecution, the accused has been
facing trial on the allegation that on 7.6.2007 at about 2.40 pm at PF No. 7, Hazarat Nizammuding Railway Station, Delhi side, within the jurisdiction of PS HNDRS he committed the theft of purse containing articles as per seizure memo mark A of the complainant Raju without his consent and later on Contd..........
/2/ found in possession of same which he dishonestly received or retained knowing or having reason to believe that the same was stolen property and thus a case for offence punishable u/s 379/411 IPC has been registered against the accused. The IO after completion of investigation has filed the chargesheet before the court.
2 The accused was supplied with copies of chargesheet and on the basis of material on record, he was charged for offence punishable u/s 379/411 IPC vide order of this court dated 6.7.2007. When the charge was readover and explained to accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3 To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined as many as 4 witnesses in support of its case.
4 The first witness examined by prosecution was PW1 HC Mahesh Chand , who has deposed about registration of FIR in the present case and has proved the copy of FIR Ex. PW1/A and endorsement on the original rukka as Ex. PW1/B. 5 PW2 Ct. Mohd. Kaushar PW3 Ct. Richpal and PW4 HC Jai Kumar are the witnesses of recovery of case property from the possession of accused all of them have fully supported the case of the prosecution and have correctly identified the case property and accused when the same were Contd..........
/3/ produced before them during recording of their statement in court. All of them have deposed that on 7.6.2007 , at about 2.40 pm when at General coach of Goa Express stationed at PF No. 7 they heard the noise of chor chor and they reached there where Raju met them and he narrated all fact and he handed over to them that apprehended person. RPF Ct. Richhpal /PW3 also reached at the spot. IO/PW4 recovered one purse brown coloured from the possession of accused, which was found containing Rs. 100/ one diary and some document and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A. After that IO/PW4 recorded the statement of complainant and made a rukka Ex. PW4/A and handed over it to Ct. Kaushal/PW2 for registration of FIR. Ct. Kaushal/PW2 went to PS and after registration of FIR came back at the spot and handed over the original rukka and copy of the FIR to IO/PW4. The accused told his name as Raju S/o Namesh and he is present today in the court. IO/PW4 prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant Ex. PW4/B, arrested the accused and conducted his personal search in the presence of witnesses vide memos Ex. PW2/B and C. no other witness has been examined by prosecution and PE was ordered to be closed. 6 Statement of accused was recorded on 14.9.2007 , wherein accused has denied all the incrimination evidence when the same was put to him and deposed that it is a false case and he had been falsely implicated in this case. However the accused has refused to lead evidence in his defence.
Contd..........
/4/ 7 I have heard the submissions of APP for the State and accused in persons and carefully gone through the material produced on record. 8 The prosecution has put the allegations against the accused for committing theft of purse of complainant and to this effect prosecution examined 4 witnesses who have fully supported the case of the prosecution. The prosecution examined PW2 Ct. Mohd. Kaushar, PW3 Ct. Richpal and PW4 HC Jai Kumar as material witnesses ,all of them have fully supported the case of the prosecution and has proved the date, time and place of the incident and apprehension of the accused at the spot. The testimony of all the aforesaid witnesses remained unrebutted as accused has failed to cross examine all of them when they were examined in court. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, I have no reason to disbelieve the testimony of aforesaid as they have proved the case of the prosecution in well manner. There are no material contradiction in the statement of aforesaid witnesses. The accused has simply denied the case of the prosecution in his statement but has refused to lead any evidence in his defence regarding possession of case property on the date of incident which also create doubt on the credibility of the accused.
Contd..........
/5/ 9 Hence in view of the above discussion and the facts and circumstances of the case, I have no hesitation in my mind to coming into conclusion that it was only accused who on the date time and place of the incident has committed the theft of purse of complainant. Accordingly the accused Raju S/o S/o Namesh Singh hereby convicted for offence punishable u/s 379 IPC.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY 14.9.2007 (SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI IN THE COURT OF SH. SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : M.M. DELHI STATE VS. RAJU FIR NO: 58/07 P. S. HNDRS ORDER ON SENTENCE Present: APP for State.
Accused The accused has been convicted for offence punishable u/s 379 IPC vide separate judgment of this court dated 14.9.2007.
Heard on the point of sentence.
The accused/convict submits that he belongs to a very poor family. He further submits that he is in J/C in this case since 7.6.2007. He further submits that he is the only earning member of his family and prayed for a lenient view.
Considering the nature of the offence and socio, economic condition of the accused, accused is sentenced to 4 month RI in this case U/s 379 IPC. Benefit of Section 428 Cr. P.C. is awarded to the accused. Case property be disposed off in accordance with law.
File be consigned to Record Room. Copy of order be given to the accused, free of cost.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY 14.9.2007 (SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI IN THE COURT OF SH. SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : M.M. DELHI STATE VS. DEVENDER FIR/CC NO: 138/07 P. S. RPF/SSB JUDGEMENT U/S 355 Cr.P.C .:
a) Serial No. of the case : 138/07 b) Date of offence : 14.5.2007 c) Offence complained of : 3 RP(UP) Act d) Name of complainant : ASI Ramesh Kumar e) Name of accused, his : Devender S/o Fakir Chand parentage & residence R/o G0, Vijay Vihar, Lal Flats, Rohini, Sector4, Delhi. f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty g) Final order : Convicted h) Date of institution of case : 21.6.2007 i) Date on which case reserved : 14.9.2007 for judgment j) Date of judgment : 14.9.2007 ( after lunch) BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION: 1 Briefly stating, as per case of prosecution, the accused has been facing trial on the allegation that on 14.5.2007 at about 17.30 hours near
reservation counter SSB, within the jurisdiction of RPF post SSB, he was apprehended by RPF staff and was found in possession of 2 CST9, plate valued about Rs. 1200/ to the Railway Department and reasonably Contd..........
/2/ suspected of having been stolen or obtained unlawfully and thus a case for offence punishable u/s 3 of RP(UP) Act, 1996 has been registered against the accused. The IO after completion of investigation has filed the chargesheet before the court.
2 Copies of complaint and other documents were supplied to the accused and case was fixed for precharge evidence vide order dated 21.6.2007. During precharge evidence, prosecution examined PW1 ASI Ramesh Kumar EO of the case and PW2 Sh Vipin Singh and after that precharge P.E. was closed. Thereafter, charge for offence U/S 3RP(UP) Act was framed against the accused on 7.7.2007 , to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3 PW1 ASI Ramesh Kumar has deposed that on 14.5.2007 he alongwith Ct. Sumer Pal Singh were patrolling and while patrolling when they reached near Shakoor Basti reservation Hall the accused whom he correctly identified was found in possession of 2 CST plates which he was carrying in his rickshaw and same was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW1/A. He has further proved the personal search of accused vide Ex. PW1/B, disclosure statement of accused vide Ex. PW1/C, pointing out memo Ex. PW1/D, confessional statement Ex. PW1/E and site plan of the spot as Ex. PW1/F as well as complaint Ex. PW1/G. PW1 has fully supported the Contd..........
/3/ case of the prosecution and has correctly identified the case property when the same produced before him recording of his statement as the same which was recovered from the possession of accused on the date of incident. 4 PW2 Vipin Singh, PWI has deposed that on 15.5.2007 he has handedover the memo Ex. PW2/A regarding theft of 2 CST9 plates from Peer Baba Ki Dargah and on 26.5.2007 identified the said case property and proved the Tanki report vide Ex. PW2/B. 5 PW3 Ct. Samar Pal also the witnessed of recovery of case property from the possession of accused and has reiterated the version as stated by EO/PW1 ASI Ramesh Kumar and have fully supported the case of the prosecution. He had also proved the documents prepared during the investigation and has correctly identified the case property and accused. 6 The accused in his statement recorded on 14.9.2007 has admitted to commit the offence in question as well as admitted the all incriminating evidence as true and correct and refused to lead any evidence in his defence and prayed for a lenient view.
7 I have heard the submission of Ld. APP and of accused in person and have carefully gone through the record. 8 In view of the above discussion as well as the statement of accused , wherein accused has admitted the offence in question , moreover Contd..........
/4/ the accused has not been cross examined the prosecution witnesses either at pre charge evidence stage or at after charge evidence. I have come to the conclusion that it was only accused who on the aforesaid date, time and place mentioned, have committed the offence in question and thus a case for offence punishable u/s 3 RP (UP) Act 1966 is stand proved against him. 9 In the case titled as " The Public Prosecutor (A.P.) Vs. Shaik Galib and others" 1975 CRL.L.J.952 (A.P.), S. OBUL REDDI, C.J. it was held : " that the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act (1966), Section 3 - Seizure of suspected stolen railway property - No report of theft by Railway - Burden of proof. (Evidence Act (1872), Sections 101104). It is not necessary that there should be a report of the theft of the railway property. It is sufficient if the facts and circumstances disclose that the property is reasonably suspected of having been stolen. Once it is established that it is the railway property and it is reasonably suspected to have been stolen, the burden shifts upon the accused to show how he came into lawful possession of the same. The fact that no report of theft was made from the railway yard is not a ground for holding that the accused came into possession of the property by lawful means."
10 In another case titled as " Balkishan A. Devidayal Vs. State of Maharashtra" & " State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Hari & Ors." 1980 CRL. L. J. 1424, (SUPREME COURT). It was observed that : Contd..........
/5/ U/s. 25 - Police Officer - Officer of R.P.F. making inquiry in respect of offence under S. 3 of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act (1966), is not Police Officer .
The primary test for determining whether an officer is a Police Officer is : Whether the officer concerned under the Special Act, has been invested with all the powers exercisable by an officerin charge of a Police Station under Chapter XIV of the Criminal Procedure Code qua investigation of offences under that Act, including the power to initiate prosecution by submitting a report (charge sheet) under Section 173 of the Cr. P.C. of 1898. In order to bring him within the purview of the 'police officer' for the purpose of Section 1/25, Evidence Act, it is not enough to show that the exercises some or even many of the powers of a police officer conducting an investigation under the Code. Constitution of India, Art. 20 (3) "P erson accused of an offence" Person arrested under S. 6 of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act 1966 - Incriminating statements made by him during enquiry under S.8- Prosecution under S. 20 (3) not available."
11. In another case titled as " Salim Mohamed Babul Miniyar Vs. State of Maharashtra" 2001 CRL. L. J. 58 (BOMBAY) (Mrs.) Pratibha Upasani, J. in Cr. Revn. Appl. NO. 243 of 1994 it was held that : Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act (29 of 1966), Ss. 3(a), 8(1) - Unlawful possession of railway property - Accused voluntarily confessed that he had purchased stolen property of railway - Confessional statement recorded by RPF officer making enquiry under S. 8(1) - Is admissible in evidence as he is not a police officer under S. 162 Cr. P.C. Conviction based on said confessional statement - Not illegal.
Contd..........
/6/
12. Prosecution witnesses have proved the date, time and place of offence and have also established the identity of accused and that of case property. There are no such contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses so as to disbelieve their testimony. Moreover, accused has admitted the allegations of prosecution against him. 13 In view of the aforesaid discussion I am of the view that prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence accused Devender S/o Fakir Chand is hereby convicted for offence U/S 3 RP(UP) Act.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY 14.9.2007 (SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI IN THE COURT OF SH. SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : M.M. DELHI STATE VS. DEVENDER FIR/CC NO: 138/07 P. S. RPF/SSB ORDER ON SENTENCE:
Present: APP for State.
Accused in J/C.
The accused has been convicted for offence punishable u/s 3 RP (UP) Act vide separate judgment of this court dated 14.9.2007.
Heard the accused on the point of sentence.
Accused submitted that he belonged to very poor family. He further submitted that he is in J/C in this case since 14.5.2007. He further submitted that he is only earing member of his family and prayed for a lenient view.
Considering the nature of the offence and socio, economic condition of the convict, he is sentenced 4 month RI with fine Rs. 1000/ I/D 7 days SI U/s 3RP(UP) Act. Case property be disposed off according to the court of law. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY 14.9.2007 (SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI IN THE COURT OF SH. SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : M.M. DELHI STATE VS. BHAVESH ETC.
FIR/CC NO: 11/07P. S. RPF/TKD JUDGEMENT U/S 355 Cr.P.C .:
a) Serial No. of the case : 103/07 b) Date of offence : 25.3.2007 c) Offence complained of : 3 RP(UP) Act. d) Name of complainant : SI P.K Awasthi e) Name of accused, his : 1 Bhavesh S/o Kadir Sheikh parentage & residence 2 Modul S/o Maisoor Ali 3 Kala Chand S/o Rajab Ali Khan All R/o Tuglakabad Pahari, Jhuggi Jhopri, PS Okhla, Phase1, New Delhi. f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty g) Final order : Convicted h) Date of such order : 14.9.2007 h) Date of institution of case : 24.7.2007 i) Date on which case reserved : 14.9.2007 for judgment j) Date of judgment : 14.9.2007 ( after lunch) BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION: 1 Briefly stating, as per case of prosecution, all aforesaid accused
persons have been facing trial on the allegation that on 25.3.2007 at about Contd..........
/2/ 20.30 hours at washing line TKD Diesal Shed, within the jurisdiction of RPF Post TKD they were apprehended by the RPF staff and found in possession of Railway material two tapit cover, one lead as per recovery memo Ex. PW3/A valued about Rs. 4000/ belonging to the Railway Department and reasonably suspected of having been stolen or obtained unlawfully and thus a case for offence punishable u/s 3 of RP(UP) Act, 1996 has been registered against all the accused persons. The IO after completion of investigation has filed the chargesheet before the court.
2 Copies of complaint and other documents were supplied to the accused persons and case was fixed for precharge evidence vide order dated 24.4.2007 . During precharge evidence, prosecution examined PW1 M.P. Sharma , PW2 Shiv Kumar , PW4 SI P.K. Awasthi and PW5 Rishi Pal after that precharge P.E. was closed. Thereafter, charge for offence U/S 3RP(UP) Act was framed against the accused on 27.6.2008 , to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3 PW1 M.P. Singh, SE Diesel and PW2 Shiv Kumar have deposed about inspection of the case property and has proved report to this effect Ex. PW1/A. PW4 SI P.K. Awasthi was the EO of the case and has proved that on the date, time and place mentioned above all the accused persons have been arrested in this case and has proved the document Contd..........
/3/ preparation during the investigation like seizure memo Ex. PW3/A, personal search of accused vide memo Ex. PW3/B,C and D, disclosure statement of accused vide Ex. PW3/E , pointing out memo of the place of theft vide Ex. PW3/F , confessional statement of accused vide Ex. PW3/G , H and , I and preparation of site plan Ex.PW3/JPW5 Sh. Rishi Pal has proved the theft memo regarding theft of case property vide Ex. PW3/A. 4 The accused persons in their statement recorded on 14.9.2007 had admitted to commit the offence in question as well as admitted the all incriminating evidence as true and correct and refused to lead any evidence in their defence and prayed for a lenient view. 5 I have heard the submission of Ld. APP and of accused in person and have carefully gone through the record. 6 In view of the above discussion as well as the statement of accused persons , wherein accused persons had admitted the offence in question , moreover the accused persons have not been cross examined the prosecution witnesses either at pre charge evidence stage or at after charge evidence. I have come to the conclusion that it were only accused persons who on the aforesaid date, time and place mentioned, have committed the offence in question and thus a case for offence punishable u/s 3 RP (UP) Act 1966 is stand proved against them.
Contd..........
/4/ 7 In the case titled as " The Public Prosecutor (A.P.) Vs. Shaik Galib and others" 1975 CRL.L.J.952 (A.P.), S. OBUL REDDI, C.J. it was held : " that the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act (1966), Section 3 - Seizure of suspected stolen railway property - No report of theft by Railway - Burden of proof. (Evidence Act (1872), Sections 101104). It is not necessary that there should be a report of the theft of the railway property. It is sufficient if the facts and circumstances disclose that the property is reasonably suspected of having been stolen. Once it is established that it is the railway property and it is reasonably suspected to have been stolen, the burden shifts upon the accused to show how he came into lawful possession of the same. The fact that no report of theft was made from the railway yard is not a ground for holding that the accused came into possession of the property by lawful means."
8. In another case titled as " Balkishan A. Devidayal Vs. State of Maharashtra" & " State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Hari & Ors." 1980 CRL. L. J. 1424, (SUPREME COURT). It was observed that : U/s. 25 - Police Officer - Officer of R.P.F. making inquiry in respect of offence under S. 3 of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act (1966), is not Police Officer .
The primary test for determining whether an officer is a Police Officer is : Whether the officer concerned under the Special Act, has been invested with all the powers exercisable by an officerin charge of a Police Station under Chapter XIV of the Criminal Procedure Code qua investigation of Con td..........
/5/ offences under that Act, including the power to initiate prosecution by submitting a report (charge sheet) under Section 173 of the Cr. P.C. of 1898. In order to bring him within the purview of the 'police officer' for the purpose of Section 1/25, Evidence Act, it is not enough to show that the exercises some or even many of the powers of a police officer conducting an investigation under the Code. Constitution of India, Art. 20 (3) "P erson accused of an offence" Person arrested under S. 6 of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act 1966 - Incriminating statements made by him during enquiry under S.8- Prosecution under S. 20 (3) not available."
9. In another case titled as " Salim Mohamed Babul Miniyar Vs. State of Maharashtra" 2001 CRL. L. J. 58 (BOMBAY) (Mrs.) Pratibha Upasani, J. in Cr. Revn. Appl. NO. 243 of 1994 it was held that : Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act (29 of 1966), Ss. 3(a), 8(1) - Unlawful possession of railway property - Accused voluntarily confessed that he had purchased stolen property of railway - Confessional statement recorded by RPF officer making enquiry under S. 8(1) - Is admissible in evidence as he is not a police officer under S. 162 Cr. P.C. Conviction based on said confessional statement - Not illegal.
10. Prosecution witnesses have proved the date, time and place of offence and have also established the identity of accused persons and that of case property. There are no such contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses so as to disbelieve their testimony. Moreover, accused persons have admitted the allegations of prosecution against them.
Contd..........
/6/ 11 In view of the aforesaid discussion I am of the view that prosecution has proved its case against all the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly all the accused persons are hereby convicted for offence U/S 3 RP(UP) Act.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY 14.9.2007 (SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI IN THE COURT OF SH. SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : M.M. DELHI STATE VS. BHAVESH ETC.
FIR/CC NO: 11/07P. S. RPF/TKD ORDER ON SENTENCE:
Present: APP for State.
All accused in J/C.
All the accused have been convicted for offence punishable u/s 3 RP(UP) Act vide separate judgment of this court dated 14.9.2007.
Heard the accused on the point of sentence.
Accused submitted that they belonged to very poor family. They further submitted that they are in J/C in this case since 23.3.2007. They further submitted that they are only earing member of their family and prayed for a lenient view.
Considering the nature of the offence and socio, economic condition of the convicts, they are sentenced to 6 months RO with fine Rs. 1000/ each I/D 3 days SI U/s 3RP(UP) Act. Benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C is awarded to accused persons. Case property be disposed off according to the court of law. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY 14.9.2007 (SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI IN THE COURT OF SH. S. K.GAUTAM :MM :DELHI State Vs. Harpal Singh FIR No. 393/89 PS : NDLS U/s. 279/304A IPC ORDER ON SENTENCE:
Present: APP for State.
Accused/convict on bail with Sh. D.V. Goel, Adv. The accused/convict has been convict for offence punishable u/s 279/304A IPC vide separate judgment of this court dated 6.9.2007.
Heard on point of sentence.
APP for the State submitted that prosecution proved its case against the accused/convict by examining the material witnesses as such accused/convict is liable to be sentenced in accordance with law as the accused has caused death of deceased by running the offending vehicle on the footpath. Therefore accused is liable for severe punishment so that he shall not do courage to repeat the said offence.
On the other hand Ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that accused has been facing rigor trial since last 19 years. On the fateful day the alleged accident has been took place he has also been suffering agony by terminating from services and he has family to support consisting old ailing parent and 3 minor children are dependent upon the accused/convict who is only bread earning member in the family. It is further submitted that accused remained punctual during the trial and never absent.
Contd..........
/2/ remained absent till today. . It is further prayed that accused may be released on probation and ready to give some compensation to the kith and kins of the deceased. Ld. Counsel has also relied upon a case titled as Raghunath Pradhan V. State of Orissa 2006 CRI.L. J. 3211, wherein it was observed that:
" (A)Causing death by negligence - Victim an old lady was proceeding on her left side and bus driven by accused dashed against her resulting into her death when horn was blown victim went to extreme left side or road even then bus ran over her independent witness also corroborated statement of eye witness accused driver of bus categorically admitted that he was driving bus at relevant time There was no evidence with regard to application of brake by accused no material contradiction in evidence of prosecution witnesses conviction of accused proper"
(B)" Probation of offender Act ( 20 of 1958), S.4 Release on probation accused held to be guilty for causing death by negligence Accused was a young man and only earning member of his family He was a first offender and no previous sentence has been proved against him in circumstances, accused directed to be released on probation" . Ld. Counsel has further relied upon a judgment titled as Channi Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh 2006 (2) JCC 1188 wherein it was observed that:
" Probation of Offender Act, 1958 Sec.4 The cope of Sec. 4 of the Probation Act is much wider It applies to any person found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for lifePractice and Contd..........
/3/ Procedure modification of the judgment There is no provision for modification of the judgment But considering the peculiar circumstances this court direct the H.C to consider the application under the Probation Act or Sec. 360 of the code as the case may be so fas the appellant is concerned and pass the appropriate order.
In view of submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused/convict and Ld. APP for State I am of the view that the principle of Res ipsa loquitur as per which : " This principle is only a rule of evidence to determine the onus of proof in actions relating to negligence. The said principle has application only when the nature of the accident and the attending circumstances would reasonably lead to the belief that in the absence of negligence the accident would not have occurred and that the thing which caused injury is shown to have been under the management and control of the alleged wrongdoor".
In case titled as State of M.P. V. Jagdish Jugilal Baloi, 1992 Cr.LJ 727 (SC) it has been observed that:
" when accused was driving vehicle at a high speed and knocked down deceased waiting on left side or road, and after breaking road side fencing vehicle got struck up in ditch maxim res ipsa loquitur becomes applicable and accused held guilty".
Further while delivering the judgment in the Alistari Pereira case the Bombay High court observed that and Chief Justice Contd..........
/4/ Swatanter Kumar and Justice Ranjana Desi said " conferring a badge of honour on cops who were at the receiving end following Pereira" s acquittal on charges of culpable homicide in April this year....... the judges said " the judgment of the trial court, besides ignoring material pieces of evidence has erred in law". ...... The judges dismissed the so called lacunae as " insignificant or inconsequential" and said " By itself, it would not be sufficient to disbelieve the prosecution case in its entirety , particularly when it has sufficient evidence to substantiate the charge." The court held the prosecution has produced " documentary , circumstantial, pictorial and expert evidence " the was sufficient to hold the accused guilty.
Further in Salman Khan case " these were some of the arguments advanced by the prosecution in Khan's case as well. Khan was initially charged with culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Supreme Court dropped the harsh charge and allowed the actor to be prosecuted for the relatively minor charge of causing death due to rash and negligent act. But the apex court said the trail court could reinstate the charge if it found any evidence. Salaman's trial is at its end Contd..........
/5/ stage and legal experts say it is unlikely that magistrate would be influenced by the HC judgment. But the lower court could not possibly ignore the verdict completely.
In the present case considering the facts and circumstances the accused is here acted in similar way by dashing the deceased who was sleeping on the footpath. The accident happened in a manner whereby no human being is found to be safe either he is sleeping in his house or on the footpath. If the life of the persons has been taken away by by rash and negligent driving by drove the vehicle on the footpath that will goes to serious gross negligence on the part of accused/convicted. The accused/convicted having the device by drove the offending vehicle, can apply the brakes, to save the life of persons but the accused/convict has not acted upon so. As such accused/convict is not deserving any leniency by releasing him on probation. Accordingly submission for releasing the accused on probation and compensation is hereby declined.
In a case titled as 1996 I AD (Delhi)1012 Zamir Ahmad Vs. The State it was held that:
" It is well established of principle of law that the accused persons should be dealt with contingent punishment which is just and proper in the circumstances of a given case . Keeping in view the gravity of the offence and the circumstances of the crime under which the alleged offence was committed. Thus punishment awarded must be consistent with and conform to the gravity of the crime after taking into consideration all the Contd..........
/6/ circumstances. It is well recognized principle of the theory of punishment that the compassion need not be given the 90 by to at the time of passing the judgment".
Further in a case titled as Malkhan Singh Vs. State NCT of Delhi 1999 I (AD) Delhi 853 Justice J.B. Goel has observed the negligence that:
" negligenceproof of can be inferred from proved facts and circumstances The truck coming from back, overtaking from left without horn taking scooter from right side could not stop the truck immediately after the accident. All prove the negligent driving"
There is no dependent and there is no any legal heir is placed on record. Hence in the facts and circumstances of the case and the judgment of Apex Court cited above with respect to offence u/s 304 IPC , by following the spirit of the said judgment, I awarded 6 months RI and fine Rs. 5000/ , in default of payment of fine the accused shall undergo SI for 3 months u/s 279/304A IPC. No separate sense is awarded u/s 279 IPC. I thing sentence awarded to the accused meets end of justice. Copy of judgment as well as of this order be given to accused free of cost.
File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY 14.9.2007 (SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI IN THE COURT OF SH. SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : M.M. DELHI STATE VS. YOGESH FIR/CC NO: 03/2003 P. S. RPF/DLI JUDGEMENT U/S 355 Cr.P.C .:
a) Serial No. of the case : 552/03
b) Date of offence : 13.1.2003
c) Offence complained of : 3 RP(up) Act.
d) Name of complainant : ASI Kashi Ram
e) Name of accused, his : Yogesh S/o Sh. Kishan
parentage & residence R/o H. No. A232, Indrapuri,
Loni, Distt. Ghaziabad, U.P.
f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) Final order : Convicted
h) Date of institution of case : 14.8.2003
i) Date on which case reserved : 14.9.2007
for judgment
j) Date of judgment : 14.9.2007 ( after lunch)
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION:
1 Briefly stating, as per case of prosecution, the accused has been
facing trial on the allegation that on 13.1.2003 at about 4.50 hours at sick line, OHE pole No. 3037 within the jurisdiction of RPF Post DLI(m) he was apprehended by RPF staff and was found in possession of one SAB as per seizure memo Ex. PW1/A valued about Rs. 4500/ belonging to the Contd..........
/2/ Railway Department and reasonably suspected of having been stolen or obtained unlawfully and thus a case for offence punishable u/s 3 of RP(UP) Act, 1996 has been registered against the accused. The IO after completion of investigation has filed the chargesheet before the court. 2 Copies of complaint and other documents were supplied to the accused and case was fixed for precharge evidence vide order dated 28.1.2003. During precharge evidence, prosecution examined PW1 HC Devi Dayal and PW2 SI Kashi Ram and after that precharge P.E. was closed. Thereafter, charge for offence U/S 3RP(UP) Act was framed against the accused on 31.7.2007 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3 PW1 HC Devi Dayal and PW2 SI Kashi Ram, EO of the case are the witnesses of recovery of case property from the possession of accused. Both of them have fully supported the case of the prosecution and have correctly identified the accused as well as the case property when the same was produced before them during recording of their statement. Both of them have proved date, time and placed of the incident on which the accused was apprehended with the alleged case property and proved the document prepared during the investigation like arrest memo of accused Ex. PW1/A, Contd..........
/3/ personal search Ex. PW1/B , disclosure statement of accused vide Ex. PW1/C, theft memo Ex. PW1/D, confessional statement of accused vide Ex. PW1/E, and site plan of the incident vide Ex. PW1/G. PW3 Ramesh Kumar has proved the theft memo vide Ex. PW3/A of the alleged case property. 4 The accused in his statement recorded on 14.9.2007 has admitted to commit the offence in question as well as admitted the all incriminating evidence as true and correct and refused to lead any evidence in his defence and prayed for a lenient view.
5 I have heard the submission of Ld. APP and of accused in person and have carefully gone through the record. 6 In view of the above discussion as well as the statement of accused , wherein accused has admitted the offence in question , moreover the accused has not been cross examined the prosecution witnesses either at pre charge evidence stage or at after charge evidence. I have come to the conclusion that it was only accused who on the aforesaid date, time and place mentioned, have committed the offence in question and thus a case for offence punishable u/s 3 RP (UP) Act 1966 is stand proved against him. 7 In the case titled as " The Public Prosecutor (A.P.) Vs. Shaik Galib and others" 1975 CRL.L.J.952 (A.P.), S. OBUL REDDI, C.J. it was held : Contd..........
/4/ " that the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act (1966), Section 3 - Seizure of suspected stolen railway property - No report of theft by Railway - Burden of proof. (Evidence Act (1872), Sections 101104). It is not necessary that there should be a report of the theft of the railway property. It is sufficient if the facts and circumstances disclose that the property is reasonably suspected of having been stolen. Once it is established that it is the railway property and it is reasonably suspected to have been stolen, the burden shifts upon the accused to show how he came into lawful possession of the same. The fact that no report of theft was made from the railway yard is not a ground for holding that the accused came into possession of the property by lawful means."
8. In another case titled as " Balkishan A. Devidayal Vs. State of Maharashtra" & " State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Hari & Ors." 1980 CRL. L. J. 1424, (SUPREME COURT). It was observed that : U/s. 25 - Police Officer - Officer of R.P.F. making inquiry in respect of offence under S. 3 of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act (1966), is not Police Officer .
The primary test for determining whether an officer is a Police Officer is : Whether the officer concerned under the Special Act, has been invested with all the powers exercisable by an officerin charge of a Police Station under Chapter XIV of the Criminal Procedure Code qua investigation of offences under that Act, including the power to initiate prosecution by submitting a report (charge sheet) under Section 173 of the Cr. P.C. of 1898. In order to bring him within the purview of the 'police officer' for the purpose of Section 1/25, Evidence Act, it is not enough to show that the exercises some Contd..........
/5/ or even many of the powers of a police officer conducting an investigation under the Code. Constitution of India, Art. 20 (3) "P erson accused of an offence" Person arrested under S. 6 of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act 1966 - Incriminating statements made by him during enquiry under S.8- Prosecution under S. 20 (3) not available."
9. In another case titled as " Salim Mohamed Babul Miniyar Vs. State of Maharashtra" 2001 CRL. L. J. 58 (BOMBAY) (Mrs.) Pratibha Upasani, J. in Cr. Revn. Appl. NO. 243 of 1994 it was held that : Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act (29 of 1966), Ss. 3(a), 8(1) - Unlawful possession of railway property - Accused voluntarily confessed that he had purchased stolen property of railway - Confessional statement recorded by RPF officer making enquiry under S. 8(1) - Is admissible in evidence as he is not a police officer under S. 162 Cr. P.C. Conviction based on said confessional statement - Not illegal.
10. Prosecution witnesses have proved the date, time and place of offence and have also established the identity of accused and that of case property. There are no such contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses so as to disbelieve their testimony. Moreover, accused has admitted the allegations of prosecution against him.
Contd..........
/6/ 11 In view of the aforesaid discussion I am of the view that prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accused is convicted for offence U/S 3 RP(UP) Act.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY 14.9.2007 (SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI IN THE COURT OF SH. SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : M.M. DELHI STATE VS. YOGESH FIR/CC NO: 03/2003 P. S. RPF/DLI ORDER ON SENTENCE:
Present: APP for State.
Accused in J/C.
The accused has been convicted for offence punishable u/s 3 RP (UP) Act vide separate judgment of this court dated 14.9.2007.
Heard the accused on the point of sentence.
Accused submitted that he belonged to very poor family. He further submitted that he remained in J/C for two months and 7 days. He further submitted that he is only earing member of his family and prayed for a lenient view.
Considering the nature of the offence and socio, economic condition of the convict, he is sentenced to 3 months RI with fine Rs. 4000/ I/D 15 days U/s 3RP(UP) Act. Benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C is also awarded to accused. Case property be disposed off according to the court of law. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY14.9.2007 (SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI IN THE COURT OF SH. SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : M.M. DELHI STATE VS. MOHD. NASEEN FIR NO: 162/92 P. S. NDLS JUDGEMENT U/S 355 Cr.P.C .:
a) Serial No. of the case : 1626/03 b) Date of offence : 29.2.92 c) Offence complained of : 379/511 IPC. d) Name of complainant : Shiv Baran Singh e) Name of accused, his : Mohd. Naseem S/o Mohd. Usman parentage & residence R/o C174, Krishan Nagar Lal Quarter, Delhi51. f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty g) Final order : Acquitted h) Date of institution of case : 21.8.2003 i) Date on which case reserved : 14.9.2007 for judgment j) Date of judgment : 14.9.2007 ( after lunch) BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION: 1 Briefly stating, as per case of prosecution, the accused has been
facing trial on 29.2.92 at about 8.30 pm at counter No. 18 bookign hall Ajmeri Gate side railway station, New Delhi he attempted to commit theft of a purse and thus a case for offence punishable u/s 379/511 IPC has been registered against the accused. The IO after completion of investigation has filed the chargesheet before the court.
Contd..........
/2/ 2 The accused was supplied with copies of chargesheet and on the basis of material on record, he was charged for offence punishable u/s 379/511 IPC vide order of this court dated 21.3.94 . When the charge was readover and explained to accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3 To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined as many as 3 witnesses in support of its case.
4 The first witness examined by prosecution was PW1 Ct. Nandlal and PW2 SI Khem Chand ,who have deposed that on 29.2.92 they were patrolling near Ajmeri Gate side, NDLS when they reached near counter No. 118 at 8.30 pm they found that one army man Shiv Baran Singh has apprehended accused Nasim present in the court and stated that accused was trying to pick pocket of complainant. Both of them have proved the document prepared during investigation. PW3 Retired SI Bahadur Chand has proved the registration of the FIR vide Ex. PW2/A and his endorsement upon the rukka as Ex. PW2/B. 5 Statement of accused was recorded on 3.9.2007, wherein accused has denied all the incrimination evidence when the same was put to him and deposed that it is a false case and he had been falsely implicated in this case. However the accused has refused to lead evidence in his defence. 6 I have heard the submissions of APP for the State and Counsel for the accused and carefully gone through the material produced on record.
Contd..........
/3/ 7 The prosecution has put the allegations against the accused for committing theft of purse of complainant Shiv Baran. To this effect prosecution examined only three witnesses out of four witnesses as cited in the list of witnesses, as detailed above. The witnesses left out to be examined is the star witness of the prosecution i.e. complainant Shiv Baran who is the person with whom the incident had happened. To this effect I also rely upon the observations taken in case cited in 1994 Crl. L. J. 3446 where in it was observed that : " Nonexamination of the material witnesses further strengthening doubt about genuineness of whole incident - Prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt and the accused is acquitte
8. From the perusal of material produced on record I come to the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused as per witnesses accused was apprehended near Ajmeri Gate side, NDLS which is crowded place and many public persons were available there, but, IO has not made any effort to join any public witness except the complainant, who is however not examined in this case, which certainly hampered the case of the prosecution. To this effect I rely upon observations taken in various cases such as " The State of Punjab Vs. Gurmej Singh"
1991 (2), Criminal Report 361, " The State of Punjab Vs. Gurnam Singh"
1991 (3), Criminal Report 412 (C.C. Cases) [HC 345] wherein it was held that :\ Contd..........
/4/ " That failure of the Investigation Officer to join independent witnesses of the locality in investigation sound the deathknell of the prosecution case set up against the accused, conviction based by the learned trial court on the statements of the police and excise officials cannot be sustained in and the accused is entitled to secure an acquittal on this score."
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion and facts and circumstances of the case I come to the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused. Hence, accused Mohd. Naseen S/o S/o Mohd. Ushman is hereby acquitted for the offence in question. Let file be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY 14.9.2007 (SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI IN THE COURT OF SH. SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : M.M. DELHI STATE VS. SONU KUMAR FIR NO: 392/01 P. S. RMD JUDGEMENT U/S 355 Cr.P.C .:
a) Serial No. of the case : 198/03 b) Date of offence : 30.8.2001 c) Offence complained of : 61 of Punjab Excise Act. d) Name of complainant : HC Ram Avtar e) Name of accused, his : Sonu Kumar S/o Late Kamal parentage & residence R/o Parshad Gujjar Ka Makan near Aaradhana Cinema, Gali No. 3, Seema Puri. Delhi. f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty. g) Final order : Convicted h) Date of institution of case : 8.7.2003 i) Date on which case reserved : 15.9.2007 for judgment j) Date of judgment : 15.9.2007 BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION: 1 Briefly stating, as per case of prosecution, the accused has been
facing trial on the allegation that on 30.8.2001 at about 9.35 am at W.P Hall, RMD, within the jurisdiction of 52 pouches marka Sabi Sikender Ashok Distrilary 180 ml containing seized as per seizure memo mark A without any permit or licence and thus a case for offence punishable u/s 61/1/14 of Contd..........
/2/ Punjab Excise Act has been registered against the accused. The IO after completion of investigation has filed the chargesheet before the court. 2 The accused was supplied with copies of chargesheet and on the basis of material on record, he was charged for offence punishable u/s 61/1/14 of Punjab Excise Act vide order of this court dated 21.6.200 . When the charge was readover and explained to accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3 To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined as many as 2 witnesses in support of its case.
4 Both the witnesses examined by prosecution has fully supported the case of the prosecution and correctly identified the case property and the accused during recording of their statement. Both of them have deposed that on 30.8.2001 they were posted at PS RMD . On that day they were on patrolling duty at PF No. 18 at about 9.30 am they had received one secret information by mukhbir that one person was standing near Wall of Parcel Gate, WP Hall with desi liquor. IO/PW2 requested the local public to joint the raiding party but they refused due to having their urgent work. Therefore IO/PW2 prepared a raiding party among the staff and reached at spot at about 9.35 AM and after indication of the mukhbir one person was apprehended by them was accused Sonu Kumar , who is present in the court today, who was Contd..........
/3/ formally searched and found in possession of 52 thaili of make Shufi , Ashok Distillery and Chemical private Ltd. Haryana content 180 ml laying in tin cunster. IO/PW2 took into possession the aforesaid liquor from the possession of the accused and recovered theili were given Sl.No. 1To 52 and among the aforesaid thaili 20 thaili were kept as sample and rest thaili seized them with the seals bearing VSY and handed over seal to Ct. Gianender/PW1 and prepared seizure Memo Ex. PW1/A. IO/PW2 made a rukka Ex. PW2/A and handed to Ct. Gianender/PW1 for registration of FIR. He went to PS and after registration of FIR came back at spot and handedover the copy of FIR and rukka to HC Satpal who reached spot with him. IO/PW2 handed over all writing work, case property and accused to HC Satpal who is second IO and he conducted further proceeding in the case He also recorded their statement in this regard. 5 In his statement recorded on 15.9.2007 , the accused has pleaded guilty and admitted the offence in question and has also filed an application Ex. C1 to this effect.
6 I have heard the submission of Ld. APP and of accused in person and have carefully gone through the record. 7 In view of the above discussion as well as the statement of accused , wherein accused has admitted the offence in question for which he Contd..........
/4/ has been charged by filing application pleading guilty, I have come to the conclusion that it was only accused who on the date , time and place mentioned above have committed offence in question and thus a case for offence punishable u/s 61/1/14 of Punjab Excise Act is stand proved against the accused.
8. In the case titled as " State of Maharashtra V/s. Dhruwa Wollen Mills Pvt. Ltd." 1991 Crl J 3142 (Bom.) it is held that: " If the substance of accusation is properly explained to the accused and the accused understands fully the implication of the charge and pleads guilty, the Magistrate can record such plea and convict the accused on accepting such plea. But if the accused is not present before the Magistrate and does not plead guilty, the plea of guilty by other accused on his behalf, is illegal." 9 Hence in view of above discussion coupled with voluntary plea of guilty by accused in his statement as well as by filing application to the said effect, I have come to the conclusion that the accused is found guilty for the offence in question. Accordingly the said accused is hereby convicted for offence punishable u/s 61/1/14 of Punjab Excise Act.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY 15.9.2007 (SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI IN THE COURT OF SH. SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : M.M. DELHI STATE VS. SONU KUMAR FIR NO: 392/01 P. S. RMD ORDER ON SENTENCE Present: APP for State.
Accused in J/C. The accused has been convicted for offence punishable u/s 61/1/14 of Punjab Excise Act vide separate judgment of this court dated 15.9.2007.
Heard on the point of sentence.
The accused/convict submits that he belongs to a very poor family. He further submits that he remained in J/C in this case for about 3 months and 9 days. He further submits that he is the only earning member of his family and prayed for a lenient view.
Considering the nature of the offence and socio, economic condition of the accused, accused is sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him during investigation inquiry and trial of this case U/s 61/1/14 of Punjab Excise Act. Case property be disposed off in accordance with law.
File be consigned to Record Room. Copy of order be given to the accused, free of cost.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY 15.9.2007 (SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI IN THE COURT OF SH. SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : M.M. DELHI STATE VS. ASLAM FIR NO: 210/01 P. S. RMD JUDGEMENT U/S 355 Cr.P.C .:
a) Serial No. of the case : 508/03 b) Date of offence : 9.5.2001 c) Offence complained of : 61 of Punjab Excise Act. d) Name of complainant : HC Rampal e) Name of accused, his : Aslam S/o Garilu Shekh parentage & residence R/o Vegabond, Delhi. f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty. g) Final order : Convicted h) Date of institution of case : 5.8.2003 i) Date on which case reserved : 15.9.2007 for judgment j) Date of judgment : 15.9.2007 BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION: 1 Briefly stating, as per case of prosecution, the accused has been
facing trial on the allegation that on 9.5.2001 at about 1.10 am at gate No. 1, RMD, within the jurisdiction of PS RMD, he was found in possession of 40 pouches of marka Mastana Sharab seized as per seizure memo Mark A without any permit or licence and thus a case for offence punishable u/s 61/1/14 of Contd..........
/2/ Punjab Excise Act has been registered against the accused. The IO after completion of investigation has filed the chargesheet before the court. 2 The accused was supplied with copies of chargesheet and on the basis of material on record, he was charged for offence punishable u/s 61/1/14 of Punjab Excise Act vide order of this court dated 21.7.2007 . When the charge was readover and explained to accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3 To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined as many as 2 witnesses in support of its case.
4 Both the witnesses examined by prosecution are PW1 ASI Shiv Kumar who was the second IO and PW2 Ct. Karuna Karan was the recovery witness, have fully supported the case of the prosecution and correctly identified the case property and the accused during recording of their statement. PW2 ASI Shiv Kumar has deposed about reaching the spot alongwith Ct. Karuna Karan/PW2 and have deposed that on that day investigation of the present case was marked to him. He reached to the spot alongwith Ct. Karuna Karan alongwith FIR and original rukka. HC Ram Pal produced accused alongwith case property and documents to him. He prepared site plan at the instance of HC Ram Pal Ex. PW1/A. He further deposed that he arrested the accused and conducted his personal search vide Contd..........
/3/ memo Ex PW1/B and PW1/ and accused was put up in lockup and case property was deposited at Malkhana. He further deposed that he recorded the statement of witnesses and on 02.07.2001 sample was sent to Punjab Excise Lab through Ct. Sunil and the same after depositing at Punjab Excise Lab handed over the receipt of RC No. 57/21 to MHC (M). PW1 has further deposed that he recorded the statement of Ct. Sunil and MCH (M). After completion of investigation challan was filed in the court through SHO. Accused is present in the court and correctly identified by the witness. 5 PW2 Ct. Karuna Karan has deposed that on 9.5.2001 he was posted at PS RMD . On that day he along with H C Ram Phal was on duty at Out Gate No. 1 at about 1:10 AM. Accused Aslam was apprehended after having suspicious and 40 pouch bearing the marka Mastana. IO prepared seizure memo for the same which is Ex. PW2/A and sealed with the seal of DS. Thereafter, IO made rukka and handed over to his for registration of FIR and reached to the spot alongwith ASI Shiv Kumar. HC Ram Pal produced accused alongwith case property and documents to ASI Shiv Kumar who prepared site plan at the instance of HC Ram Pal Ex. PW1/A IO arrested the accused and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex PW1/B and PW 1/C. Accused was put up in lockup and case property was deposited at Malkhana. IO recorded the statement of witnesses. Accused is present in the Contd..........
/4/ court and correctly identified by the witness he has correctly identified the case property.
6 In his statement recorded on 15.9.2007 , the accused has pleaded guilty and admitted the offence in question and has also filed an application Ex. C1 to this effect.
7 I have heard the submission of Ld. APP and of accused in person and have carefully gone through the record. 8 In view of the above discussion as well as the statement of accused , wherein accused has admitted the offence in question for which he has been charged by filing application pleading guilty, I have come to the conclusion that it was only accused who on the date , time and place mentioned above have committed offence in question and thus a case for offence punishable u/s 61/1/14 of Punjab Excise Act is stand proved against the accused.
9. In the case titled as " State of Maharashtra V/s. Dhruwa Wollen Mills Pvt. Ltd." 1991 Crl J 3142 (Bom.) it is held that: " If the substance of accusation is properly explained to the accused and the accused understands fully the implication of the charge and pleads guilty, the Magistrate can record such plea and convict the accused on accepting Contd..........
/5/ such plea. But if the accused is not present before the Magistrate and does not plead guilty, the plea of guilty by other accused on his behalf, is illegal." 10 Hence in view of above discussion coupled with voluntary plea of guilty by accused in his statement as well as by filing application to the said effect, I have come to the conclusion that the accused is found guilty for the offence in question. Accordingly the said accused is hereby convicted for offence punishable u/s 61/1/14 of Punjab Excise Act.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY 15.9.2007 (SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI IN THE COURT OF SH. SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : M.M. DELHI STATE VS. ASLAM FIR NO: 210/01 P. S. RMD ORDER ON SENTENCE Present: APP for State.
Accused in J/C. The accused has been convicted for offence punishable u/s 61/1/14 of Punjab Excise Act vide separate judgment of this court dated 15.9.2007.
Heard on the point of sentence.
The accused/convict submits that he belongs to a very poor family. He further submits that he remained in J/C in this case for about 2 months and 2 days. He further submits that he is the only earning member of his family and prayed for a lenient view.
Considering the nature of the offence and socio, economic condition of the accused, accused is sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him during investigation inquiry and trial of this case with fine Rs. 1000/ I/D 15 days SI U/s 61/1/14 of Punjab Excise Act. Case property be disposed off in accordance with law.
File be consigned to Record Room. Copy of order be given to the accused, free of cost.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY 15.9.2007 (SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI IN THE COURT OF SH. SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : M.M. DELHI STATE VS. JAG NARAIN FIR NO: 27/03 P. S. RSR JUDGEMENT U/S 355 Cr.P.C .:
a) Serial No. of the case : 1812/03 b) Date of offence : 15.7.2003 c) Offence complained of : 379/511 IPC d) Name of complainant : Rakesh Bijawat e) Name of accused, his : Ja Narain S/o Shiv Mani Ram parentage & residence R/o Village, Jadopur, P.S Tiar Distt. Bhaojpur, Bihar. f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty. g) Final order : Convicted. h) Date of institution of case : 29.9.2003 i) Date on which case reserved : 15.9.2007 for judgment j) Date of judgment : 15.9.2007 (after lunch) BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION: 1 Briefly stating, as per case of prosecution, the accused has been
facing trial on the allegation that on 15.7.2003 at about 8.30 pm at Ticket Ghar Sarai Rohilla Railway Station within the jurisdiction of PS RSR he attempted to commit theft of a briefcase belonging to the complainant Rakesh Bijwat and dishonestly attempted to remove the same without the consent of Contd..........
/2/ the complainant and thus a case for offence punishable u/s 379/511 IPC has been registered against the accused. The IO after completion of investigation has filed the chargesheet before the court. 2 The accused was supplied with copies of chargesheet and on the basis of material on record, he was charged for offence punishable u/s 379/511 IPC vide order of this court dated 19.10.2005 . When the charge was readover and explained to accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3 To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined all the 4 witnesses witnesses in support of its case as cited in the list of witnesses. 4 The first witness examined by prosecution was PW1 Ct. Daya Ram and PW3 HC Virender are the witnesses of spot and both of them have fully supported the case of the prosecution and have correctly identified the accused as the person who has committed offence in question on the date , time and placed mentioned. Both of the them have deposed that on 15.7.2003 they were posted at PS RSR they were patrolling at PF No. 1 , RSR . At about 8.30 pm they reached there they heard the noise of chor chor and reached there where complainant Rakesh Vijawat met them and he narrated that accused was trying to commit theft of his suitcase, meanwhile he apprehended that person and he handed over to them that apprehended person.
Contd..........
/3/ He recorded the statement of complainant and made a rukka Ex. PW3/A and handed over it to Ct. Daya Ram/PW1 for registration of FIR. He went to PS and after registration of FIR came back at the spot and handed over the original rukka and copy of the FIR to IO/PW3. IO/PW3 inspected the site and prepared site plan at the instance of complainant vide Ex. PW3/B . The accused told his name as Jag Narain and he is present today in the court. They further deposed about arrested of the accused and his personal search in the presence of witnesses vide memos Ex. PW1/A and B as well as recordng of statement of witnesses.
5 PW2 ASI Suresh Kumar has deposed about registration of FIR in the present case and has proved the copy of FIR Ex. PW2/A and endorsement on the original rukka as Ex. PW2/B. 6 PW4 was the complainant Rakesh Bijawat who has fully supported the case of the prosecution and has correctly identified the accused as the person who has committed the offence in question with him on the date , time place as mentioned above. He has deposed that on 15.07.2003 he had reached at Sarai Rohila Railway Station and while he was taking ticket at about 08:30 p.m. Meanwhile one person tried to run away with his suitcase and however he was apprehended by the police, who reached at the spot on hearing his noise chorchor. Police recorded his statement Ex. PW4/A and Contd..........
/4/ prepared site plan of the spot at his instance. After that police has arrested the accused namely Jagnarayan and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW1/A & PW1/B. He has also correctly identifed the accused and stated that all memos prepared during the investigation bears his signatures at point X. 7 The accused in his statement has denied the allegation made against him and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The accused has refused to opt any evidence in his defence. 8 I have heard Ld. APP for State, accused in person and also gone through the material on record.
9 As stated above the prosecution has examined all its material witnesses including the complainant Rakesh (W4), who have fully supported the case of the prosecution. All the witnesses has well established the date, time and place of the incident and there is no contradiction in their statement. Further the statement of all the prosecution witnesses examined in this case is remained as unrebutted as accused has failed to cross examined them. The accused has simply denied the allegation made against him in his statement and refused to lead any evidence in his defence. In view of above discussion it is crystal clear the prosecution is able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt .
Contd..........
/5/ 10 Keeping in to consideration the above discussion, I have come to the conclusion that prosecution witnesses have proved the guilt of the accused for offence in question in well manner . Accordingly the accused jag Narain S/o Shiv Mani Ram is hereby convicted for offence punishable u/s 379/511 IPC.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY 15.9.2007 (SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI IN THE COURT OF SH. SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : M.M. DELHI STATE VS. JAG NARAIN FIR NO: 27/03 P. S. RSR ORDER ON SENTENCE Present: APP for State.
Accused in J/C. The accused has been convicted for offence punishable u/s 379/511 IPC vide separate judgment of this court dated 15.9.2007.
Heard on the point of sentence.
The accused/convict submits that he belongs to a very poor family. He further submits that he remained in J/C in this case for about 2 months and 15 days. He further submits that he is the only earning member of his family and prayed for a lenient view.
Considering the nature of the offence and socio, economic condition of the accused, accused is sentenced to 4 moths RI in this case U/s 379/511 IPC. Benefit of Section 428 Cr. P.C. is awarded to the accused.
File be consigned to Record Room. Copy of order be given to the accused, free of cost.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY 15.9.2007 (SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI IN THE COURT OF SH. SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : M.M. DELHI STATE VS. PAPPU @ MOHD IRFAN FIR/CC NO: 4/06 P. S. RPF/DLE JUDGEMENT U/S 355 Cr.P.C .:
a) Serial No. of the case : 60/06 b) Date of offence : 3.2.2006 c) Offence complained of : 3 RP(UP) Act. d) Name of complainant : ASI Devi Dutt Sharma e) Name of accused, his : Pappu @ Mohd. Irfan S/o Mohd. parentage & residence Alam R/o Rented House, Gali No. 10, Bhagat Vihar, Delhi. f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty g) Final order : Convicted h) Date of institution of case : 16.3.2006 i) Date on which case reserved : 15.9.2007 for judgment j) Date of judgment : 15.9.2007 (after charge) BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION: 1 Briefly stating, as per case of prosecution, the accused has been
facing trial on the allegation that 2.2.2006 at about 19 hours in between DSA and DLI within the jurisdiction of RPF Post DLI(m) he was apprehendd by RPF staff and was found in possession of 23 pendrol clips as per seizure memo Ex. PW3/A valued about Rs. 1150/ belonging to the Railway Contd.......
/2/ Department and reasonably suspected of having been stolen or obtained unlawfully and thus a case for offence punishable u/s 3 of RP(UP) Act, 1996 has been registered against the accused. The IO after completion of investigation has filed the chargesheet before the court. 2 Copies of complaint and other documents were supplied to the accused and case was fixed for precharge evidence vide order dated 30.3.2006 . During precharge evidence, prosecution examined PW1 Deepak Kumar, PW2 V.K. Mandal and PW3 SI S.P. Singh and after that precharge P.E. was closed. Thereafter, charge for offence U/S 3RP(UP) Act was framed against the accused on 27.8.2007 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3 PW1 Deepak Kumar has proved the theft memo regarding stolen of case property vide Ex. PW1/A and has proved his report Ex.PW1/B regarding joint checking of the spot as well as PW1/C. PW2 V.K. Mandal has reiterated the version of PW1 being posted with PW1 and has proved the document as proved above as well as his report Ex. P2/A regarding the case property belonging to railway. PW3 SI S.P. Singh was the witness of recovery and has proved the date, time and place of the incident as mentiond above and apprehension of the accused alongwith case property. He has proved the arrest of accused vide Ex. PW3/A, recording of disclosure statement of accused vide Ex. PW3/B , preparation of seizure memo Ex. PW3/C , preparation of site plan Ex. PW3/D and recording of confessional Contd.....
/3/ statement of accused vide Ex. PW3/E. PW4 ASI Devi Dutt Sharma has deposed that on 3.2.2006 he has been assigned with the investigation of this case. He had done the inspection of case property through PW1 B.K. Mandal vide Ex. PW2/A, recorded statement of witnesses and after completion of investigation filed the complainant Ex. PW4/A. 4 The accused in his statement recorded on 15.9.2007 has admitted to commit the offence in question as well as admitted the all incriminating evidence as true and correct and refused to lead any evidence in his defence and prayed for a lenient view.
5 I have heard the submission of Ld. APP and of accused in person and have carefully gone through the record. 6 In view of the above discussion as well as the statement of accused , wherein accused has admitted the offence in question , I have come to the conclusion that it was only accused who on the aforesaid date, time and place mentioned, have committed the offence in question and thus a case for offence punishable u/s 3 RP (UP) Act 1966 is stand proved against him. 7 In the case titled as " The Public Prosecutor (A.P.) Vs. Shaik Galib and others" 1975 CRL.L.J.952 (A.P.), S. OBUL REDDI, C.J. it was held : Contd....
/4/ " that the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act (1966), Section 3 - Seizure of suspected stolen railway property - No report of theft by Railway - Burden of proof. (Evidence Act (1872), Sections 101104). It is not necessary that there should be a report of the theft of the railway property. It is sufficient if the facts and circumstances disclose that the property is reasonably suspected of having been stolen. Once it is established that it is the railway property and it is reasonably suspected to have been stolen, the burden shifts upon the accused to show how he came into lawful possession of the same. The fact that no report of theft was made from the railway yard is not a ground for holding that the accused came into possession of the property by lawful means."
8. In another case titled as " Balkishan A. Devidayal Vs. State of Maharashtra" & " State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Hari & Ors." 1980 CRL. L. J. 1424, (SUPREME COURT). It was observed that : U/s. 25 - Police Officer - Officer of R.P.F. making inquiry in respect of offence under S. 3 of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act (1966), is not Police Officer .
The primary test for determining whether an officer is a Police Officer is : Whether the officer concerned under the Special Act, has been invested with all the powers exercisable by an officerin charge of a Police Station under Chapter XIV of the Criminal Procedure Code qua investigation of offences under that Act, including the power to initiate prosecution by submitting a report (charge sheet) under Section 173 of the Cr. P.C. of 1898. In order to bring him within the purview of the 'police officer' for the purpose of Section 1/25, Evidence Act, it is not enough to show that the exercises some Contd.......
/5/ or even many of the powers of a police officer conducting an investigation under the Code. Constitution of India, Art. 20 (3) "P erson accused of an offence" Person arrested under S. 6 of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act 1966 - Incriminating statements made by him during enquiry under S.8- Prosecution under S. 20 (3) not available."
9. In another case titled as " Salim Mohamed Babul Miniyar Vs. State of Maharashtra" 2001 CRL. L. J. 58 (BOMBAY) (Mrs.) Pratibha Upasani, J. in Cr. Revn. Appl. NO. 243 of 1994 it was held that : Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act (29 of 1966), Ss. 3(a), 8(1) - Unlawful possession of railway property - Accused voluntarily confessed that he had purchased stolen property of railway - Confessional statement recorded by RPF officer making enquiry under S. 8(1) - Is admissible in evidence as he is not a police officer under S. 162 Cr. P.C. Conviction based on said confessional statement - Not illegal.
10. Prosecution witnesses have proved the date, time and place of offence and have also established the identity of accused and that of case property. There are no such contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses so as to disbelieve their testimony. Moreover, accused has admitted the allegations of prosecution against him.
Contd.....
/6/ 11 In view of the aforesaid discussion I am of the view that prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accused Pappu @ Mohd. Irfan S/o Mohd. Alam is convicted for offence U/S 3 RP(UP) Act.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY (SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI IN THE COURT OF SH. SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : M.M. DELHI STATE VS. PAPPU @ MOHD IRFAN FIR/CC NO: 4/06 P. S. RPF/DLE ORDER ON SENTENCE:
Present: APP for State.
Accused in J/C.
The accused has been convicted for offence punishable u/s 3 RP (UP) Act vide separate judgment of this court dated 15.9.2007.
Heard the accused on the point of sentence.
Accused submitted that he belonged to very poor family. He further submitted that he remained in J/C 3months and 16 days. He further submitted that he is only earing member of his family and prayed for a lenient view.
Considering the nature of the offence and socio, economic condition of the convict, he is sentenced to the period of detention already undergone by him during investigation, inquiry and trial of this case with fine Rs. 1000/ , I/D 30 days SI U/s 3RP(UP) Act. Case property be disposed off according to the court of law. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY 15.9.2007 (SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI IN THE COURT OF SH. SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : M.M. DELHI STATE VS. RAMVIR SINGH FIR/CC NO: 24/07 P. S. RPF/NDLS JUDGEMENT U/S 355 Cr.P.C .:
a) Serial No. of the case : 167/07 b) Date of offence : 16.6.2007 c) Offence complained of : 3 RP(UP) Act. d) Name of complainant : ASI R.B.L. Meena e) Name of accused, his : Rambir S/o Ram Swaroop parentage & residence R/o H.No. 905, Sundaripur, PS Vijay Nagar, District Ghaziabad, U.P. f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty. g) Final order : Convicted h) Date of institution of case : 31.7.2007 i) Date on which case reserved : 20.9.2007 for judgment j) Date of judgment 20.9.2007 (after charge) BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION: 1 Briefly stating, as per case of prosecution, the accused has been
facing trial on the allegation that on 16.6.2007 at about 1.50 at Parcel side, Ajmeri Gate , New Delhi within the jurisdiction of RPF Post, NDLS, he was apprehended by RPF staff and was found in possession of one booked cartoon valued about Rs. 4000/ belonging to the Railway Department and Contd..........
/2/ reasonably suspected of having been stolen or obtained unlawfully and thus a case for offence punishable u/s 3 of RP(UP) Act, 1996 has been registered against the accused. The IO after completion of investigation has filed the chargesheet before the court.
2 Copies of complaint and other documents were supplied to the accused and case was fixed for precharge evidence vide order dated 31.7.2007. During precharge evidence, prosecution examined PW1 ASI RBL Meena and PW2 Ashok Kumar , PW 3 Ct. Ravinder Kumar and after that precharge P.E. was closed. Thereafter, charge for offence U/S 3RP(UP) Act was framed against the accused on 27.8.2007 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3 PW1 RBL Meena was the EO of the case has deposed that on 16.6.2007 he alongwith Ct. Boop Singh were patrolling at Parcel side Cel and saw that one person carrying one cartoon on his shoulder and was going towards Sadar Bazar. They asked that person to stop but he after taking stride . On hearing their noise Ct. Ravinder also reached there and apprehended the accused near Sheela flyover atround 1.30 hours and got recovered on cartoon which was having railway marka of NDLS No. 093120 P6 PDGR. He have further proved the document prepared during the investigation vide Ex.PW1/A to PW1/E as well as correctly identified the accused and the case property when the same were produced before him during recording of his statement.
Contd..........
/3/ 4 PW2 Ashok Kumar has deposed deposed about the booking of the stolen cartoon i.e case property in this case vide RR No. 093120 and has proved the theft memo regarding same as Ex. PW2/A as well his statement to this effect vide Ex. PW2/B. 5 PW3 Ct. Ravidner was the recovery witnesses posted alognwith PW1 SI RBL Meena and has reiterated the version of PW1 as stated above as well as has also proved the document proved during the investigation. PW3 have also fully supported the case of the prosecution and has correctly identified the accused and the case property. 6 The accused in his statement recorded on 20.9.2007 has admitted to commit the offence in question as well as admitted the all incriminating evidence as true and correct and refused to lead any evidence in his defence and prayed for a lenient view.
7 I have heard the submission of Ld. APP and of accused in person and have carefully gone through the record. 8 In view of the above discussion as well as the statement of accused , wherein accused has admitted the offence in question , moreover the accused has not been cross examined the prosecution witnesses , who have fully supported the case of the prosecution, either at pre charge evidence stage or at after charge evidence. I have come to the conclusion that it was only accused who on the aforesaid date, time and place mentioned, have Contd..........
/4/ committed the offence in question and thus a case for offence punishable u/s 3 RP (UP) Act 1966 is stand proved against him. 9 In the case titled as " The Public Prosecutor (A.P.) Vs. Shaik Galib and others" 1975 CRL.L.J.952 (A.P.), S. OBUL REDDI, C.J. it was held : " that the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act (1966), Section 3 - Seizure of suspected stolen railway property - No report of theft by Railway - Burden of proof. (Evidence Act (1872), Sections 101104). It is not necessary that there should be a report of the theft of the railway property. It is sufficient if the facts and circumstances disclose that the property is reasonably suspected of having been stolen. Once it is established that it is the railway property and it is reasonably suspected to have been stolen, the burden shifts upon the accused to show how he came into lawful possession of the same. The fact that no report of theft was made from the railway yard is not a ground for holding that the accused came into possession of the property by lawful means."
10. In another case titled as " Balkishan A. Devidayal Vs. State of Maharashtra" & " State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Hari & Ors." 1980 CRL. L. J. 1424, (SUPREME COURT). It was observed that : U/s. 25 - Police Officer - Officer of R.P.F. making inquiry in respect of offence under S. 3 of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act (1966), is not Police Officer .
The primary test for determining whether an officer is a Police Officer is : Whether the officer Contd..........
/5/ concerned under the Special Act, has been invested with all the powers exercisable by an officerin charge of a Police Station under Chapter XIV of the Criminal Procedure Code qua investigation of offences under that Act, including the power to initiate prosecution by submitting a report (charge sheet) under Section 173 of the Cr. P.C. of 1898. In order to bring him within the purview of the 'police officer' for the purpose of Section 1/25, Evidence Act, it is not enough to show that the exercises some or even many of the powers of a police officer conducting an investigation under the Code. Constitution of India, Art. 20 (3) "P erson accused of an offence" Person arrested under S. 6 of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act 1966 - Incriminating statements made by him during enquiry under S.8- Prosecution under S. 20 (3) not available."
11. In another case titled as " Salim Mohamed Babul Miniyar Vs. State of Maharashtra" 2001 CRL. L. J. 58 (BOMBAY) (Mrs.) Pratibha Upasani, J. in Cr. Revn. Appl. NO. 243 of 1994 it was held that : Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act (29 of 1966), Ss. 3(a), 8(1) - Unlawful possession of railway property - Accused voluntarily confessed that he had purchased stolen property of railway - Confessional statement recorded by RPF officer making enquiry under S. 8(1) - Is admissible in evidence as he is not a police officer under S. 162 Cr. P.C. Conviction based on said confessional statement - Not illegal.
12. Prosecution witnesses have proved the date, time and place of offence and have also established the identity of accused and that of case Contd..........
/6/ property. There are no such contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses so as to disbelieve their testimony. Moreover, accused has admitted the allegations of prosecution against him. 13 In view of the aforesaid discussion I am of the view that prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accused Ramvir Singh S/o Ram Swaroop is convicted for offence U/S 3 RP(UP) Act.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY 20.09.2007 (SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI IN THE COURT OF SH. SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : M.M. DELHI STATE VS. RAMVIR SINGH FIR/CC NO: 24/07 P. S. RPF/NDLS ORDER ON SENTENCE:
Present: APP for State.
Accused in J/C.
The accused has been convicted for offence punishable u/s 3 RP (UP) Act vide separate judgment of this court dated 20.09.2007.
Heard the accused on the point of sentence.
Accused submitted that he belonged to very poor family. He further submitted that he remained in J/C for about 3 months and 4 days. He further submitted that he is only earing member of his family and prayed for a lenient view.
Considering the nature of the offence and socio, economic condition of the convict, he is sentenced to 3 months RI with fine Rs. 4000/ I/D 30 days SI U/s 3RP(UP) Act. Case property be disposed off according to the court of law. Benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C is also awarded to accused. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY 20.09.2007 (SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI IN THE COURT OF SH. SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : M.M. DELHI STATE VS. RAKESH KUMAR FIR NO: 128/98 P. S. NDLSE JUDGEMENT U/S 355 Cr.P.C .:
a) Serial No. of the case : 1077/03 b) Date of offence : 21.2.98 c) Offence complained of : 379/411 IPC and 147 of I.R. Act. d) Name of complainant : Dinesh Kumar e) Name of accused, his : Rakesh Kumar Jha S/o Narain parentage & residence Jha R/o Village Hardea P.S. Jankpuri Road, District Sitamadi, Bihar. f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty g) Final order : Acquitted h) Date of institution of case : 21.7.2003 i) Date on which case reserved : 20.9.2007 for judgment j) Date of judgment : 20.9.2007 (after lunch) BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION: 1 Briefly stating, as per case of prosecution, the accused has been
facing trial on the allegation that on 21.2.98 at about 9 pm at PF No. 10, NDLS, within the jurisdiction of PS NDLS, he committed the theft of briefcase containing articles as per seizure memo Mark A of the complainant Contd..........
/2/ Dinesh Kumar without his consent and later on found in possession of same , which he dishonestly received or retained knowing or having reason to believe that the same was stolen property. The accused has been also facing trial on the allegation that on the aforesaid date, time and place he was found in railway premises without any ticket or authority and thus a case for offence punishable u/s 379/411 IPC read with section 147 of I.R. Act has been registered against the accused. The IO after completion of investigation has filed the chargesheet before the court.
2 The accused was supplied with copies of chargesheet and on the basis of material on record, he was charged for offence punishable u/s 379/411 IPC read with section 147 of I.R. Act vide order of this court dated 22.6.2007. . When the charge was readover and explained to accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3 To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined only witness i.e. IO of the case Inspector Ombir Singh , who has deposed that 21.2.98 he was posted at PS NDLS on that day he was present at PF No. 10/11 for patrolling duty . At about 8 pm when he reached there he came to know that Ct. Ram Janam apprehended the accused with stolen brief case . Thereafter he made enquiry. Complainant Dinesh Kumar also reached there and he narrated all facts , thereafter PW1 seized the stolen brief case Contd..........
/3/ from right hand of the accused and checked the suitcase and found it containing some one army dress, one cap, one blue colour track suit. The suitcase along with its contents was taken in possession vide memo Ex. PW 1/A. PW1 has further deposed that he recorded the statement of complainant , attested his signature at point A on Ex. PW1/B, prepared rukka on the basis of his statement Ex. PW1/F and got the FIR registered through Ct. Ram Kumar. In between he prepare site plan at the instance of complainant Ex. PW1/C. Thereafter accused was arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex. PW1/D & E respectively as well as he recorded statement of witnesses. No other witness has been examined by prosecution despite several opportunity for the same and hence PE was closed. 4 Statement of accused was recorded on 20.9.2007, wherein accused has denied all the incriminating evidence when the same was put to him and deposed that it is a false case and he had been falsely implicated in this case. However the accused has refused to lead evidence in his defence. 5 I have heard the submissions of APP for the State and Counsel for the accused and carefully gone through the material produced on record. 6 On perusal of the file it revealed that since the framing of the charge for the alleged offence against the accused on 22.6.2007, the prosecution has been granted ample opportunity to concludes its entire Contd..........
/4/ evidence despite that prosecution has examined only witness i.e. IO of the case as PW1 Inspector Ombir Singh, who proved the investigation done by him in this case. No other witness has been examined by prosecution in support of its case. The complainant Dinesh Kumar in the present case has not been served/examined , as he is a Army personnel and reported to be unserved and his present posting whereabouts are not traced despite several efforts. The case is of year 1998 and more then 9 years have been lapsed and no effective evidence has been brought on record by prosecution which points towards the guilt of the accused.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion and facts and circumstances of the case I come to the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused. Hence, accused Rakesh Kumar S/o Narain is hereby acquitted for the offence in question. Bail bonds of accused are cancelled. Surety is discharged. Case property be disposed of in accordance with law. Let file be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY 20.09.2007 (SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI IN THE COURT OF SH. SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : M.M. DELHI STATE VS. GURMAIL SINGH FIR NO: 170/98 P. S. NDLS JUDGEMENT U/S 355 Cr.P.C .:
a) Serial No. of the case : 134/03 b) Date of offence : 13.3.98 c) Offence complained of : 25/54/59 of Arms Act. d) Name of complainant : HC Ram Gopal e) Name of accused, his : Gurmail Singh S/o Sardar parentage & residence Raghubir Singh R/o 241, LIG, Sector No. 11, Rohini, Delhi. f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty g) Final order : Acquitted h) Date of institution of case : 5.8.2003 i) Date on which case reserved : 19.9.2007 for judgment j) Date of judgment : 19.9.2007 BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION: 1 Briefly stating, as per case of prosecution, the accused has been
facing trial on the allegation that on 13.3.98 at about 9.45 pm at service road, nearby taxi pre paid booth, Ajmeri Gate side, within the jurisdiction of P.S. NDLS, he used criminal force on HC Ram Gopal and snatched a notice book No. 6050 and ran away from the spot and Contd..........
/2/ thus a case for offence punishable u/s 356/379 IPC has been registered against the accused. The IO after completion of investigation has filed the chargesheet before the court.
2 The accused was supplied with copies of chargesheet and on the basis of material on record, he was charged for offence punishable u/s 356/379 IPC vide order of this court dated 17.7.2002. When the charge was readover and explained to accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3 To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined as many as 5 witnesses witnesses in support of its case out of 13 witnesses cited in the list of witnesses.
4 The first witness examined by prosecution was PW1 Chaman Singh, he deposed that on 13.3.98 he was posted /working as a clerk at pre paid booth Ajmeri Gate side, NDLS. On that day his duty was from 8 pm to 8 am. He further deposed that at about 9.45 p, he went outside the booth for getting a cigarette and HC Ram Gopal and Ct. Ashok remained present at the outside of the booth. He further deposed that one taxi bearing No. DL1P 0417 came and HC Ram Gopal was trying to get a passenger inside the said taxi but the taxi driver of taxi left with notice book No. 6050 after snatching the same from the hands of HC Ram Gopal, one portion of said notice book Contd..........
/3/ remained in the hand of HC Ram Gopal, which was seized later on. This witness was a formal witnesses and the said incident has not occurred in presence of him because as per his own version has gone to out side of the booth for bringing the cigarette as such the incident has not occurred in his presence.
5 PW2 was Ct. Naresh, whose examination in chief was not completed as the same has been deferred on 24.9.2003 and the said witness has never turned up for completing the evidence . Hence the testimony of PW2 recorded in the court is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be read against the accused.
6 PW3 Raghubir Singh has deposed that he is the father of accused and handedover to police one notice book No. 6050 , traffic taxi No. DL1T 0417 and key of tax and document described in seizure memo Ex. PW2/A and has also deposed recorded information of arrest of accused vide memo Ex. PW3/A. 7 PW4 HC Ramesh Chand has deposed that on 13.3.98 he was posted at PS NDLS as Ct. On that day he alongwith ASI Arun Singh reached at prepaid booth Ajmere gate side after receiving call, where HC Ajit Singh, HC Ram Goptal, Ct.Ashok Kumar and Chaman Lal met them. IO recorded the statement of complainant HC Ram Gopal in which he narrated that his Contd..........
/4/ notice book was snatched by one taxi driver bearing taxi No. DL1P0417. After recording his statement IO made rukka and handedover to HC Ajit Singh for registration of FIR. He went to PS and after registration of FIR came back to spot and handedover copy of FIR and rukka to IO. IO also took into possession the copy of notice book which was produced by HC Ram Gopal and prepared the seizure memo Ex. PW4/A . In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel the PW4 has deposed that they reached at the spot at 9.45 pm and were on foot . It is correct that the many people gathered at the spot. IO has recorded statement of Ram Gopal, Chaman Lal , Ajit and Ashok at the spot. He further deposed that his statement was also recorded at the spot. It is correct that IO requested to public person to join the investigation but he cannot tell the name and addresses of these persons. No one came forward to give witness in respect of this case and he do not remember the exact time when the HC Ajit Singh returned back at the spot. He do not remember as to whether IO prepared site plan in his presence or not. PW4 has further deposed in his cross examination that they remained at the spot for about 2 hours and left the spot for PCR Head Quarter after one hour from reaching of the spot. After that he met the IO at PS only. No statement except this one was ever recorded in this case and denied that he was deposing falsely.
Contd..........
/5/ 8 The last witness examined by the witness was PW5 ASI Arun Singh , who deposed that on 13.3.98 he was on duty at PS NDLS. On that day at about 10.45 pm he received DD No. 48B, copy of same is marked A, at PS NDLS. Thereafter he alongwith Ct. Ramesh , went to Ajmeri Gate side near prepaid booth taxi stand. There HC Ram Gopal (Traffic), Ct. Ashok Kumar( Traffic) , Chaman Singh and HC Ajit Singh met them and Hc Ram Gopal complaint him that the driver of taxi number DL1T0417 snatched his notice book and ran away with his taxi. The upper page of the said book was remained in the hand of Hc Ram Goptal, which was seized vide memo Ex. PW4/A and page is Ex. P1. He further deposed that he recorded the statement of HC Ram Gopal and made a rukka Ex. PW5/A and handedover the same to HC Ajit for registration of FIR. He enquired the matter from the people gathered there, out of them I recorded statement of one Chaman Lal and other public persons gathered there have refused to participate in the same after disclosing there excuses. PW5 has further deposed that he also recorded statement other witnesses, inspected the site and prepared site plan at the instance of HC Ram Gopal Ex. PW5/B. He also send Ct. Ramesh to Police Head quarter to verify the name of owner of said taxi. Meanwhile HC Ajit Singh came back to spot after registration of case, and handedover the copy of FIR and rukka to him. PW5 also recorded the statement of HC Ajit Singh. PW5 has further testified that on next date he enquired into the matter and searched the owner of said taxi .
Contd..........
/6/ 9 PW5 has further deposed that on 16.3.98 when he alongwith Ct. Naresh were coming back to PS where one person namely Satish met them, who told that one Sardarji is searching him, who is owner of aforesaid taxi. He met that Sardarji who told his name as Raghubir Singh and also told him that his son Gurmail singh was his son and on the day of incident he was driving the taxi. He also produced the paper of aforesaid taxi with taxi and its key as well as said notice book , which was snatched on the date of incident by his son Gurmail Singh. PW5 took into possession of same and prepared seizure memo Ex. PW2/A and recorded the statement of Raghubir Singh, Satish Kumar and Ct. Naresh as well as deposited the case property in the Malkhana. PW5 has further disclosed that on 17.3.98 he received information that aforesaid Gurmail Singh was coming at Ajmeri Gate side. At about 1 pm they reached there, were HC Ram Goptal also joined them and after his pointing out accused Gurmail Singh who is present in the court was arrested and conducted personal search vide memos Ex. PW5/C and PW5/D. He also interrogated the accused and recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW5/E. Thereafter accused was brought to PS and remained in lock up and later on accused was produced before court. After completion of investigation he prepared the challan. After that further cross examination of thePW5 has been deferred for want of case property. On 1.8.2007 said Contd..........
/7/ witness has again recalled for further examination, on that day also case property was not produced and request of APP has been declined for deferring the case for want of case property and examination of the said witness has been completed without producing the case property as several opportunity for the same has been granted to the prosecution for producing the same but prosecution despite that never produce the case property during the examination of prosecution witnesses examined in this case. No other witenss has been examined by prosecution and prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 1.8.2007.
10 Statement of accused was recorded on 6.8.2007, wherein accused has denied all the incrimination evidence when the same was put to him and deposed that it is a false case and he had been falsely implicated in this case. However the accused has refused to lead evidence in his defence. 11 I have heard the submissions of APP for the State and Counsel for the accused and carefully gone through the material produced on record. 12 The prosecution has put the allegations against the accused for using criminal force on HC Ram Gopal and snatched a notice book No. 6050 and ran away from the spot. To this effect prosecution examined only five aforesaid witnesses out of 13 witnesses as cited in the list of witnesses, as detailed above. The material witnesses left HC Ram Gopal who is the star Contd..........
/8/ witness of the prosecution, in whose complaint the present case has been registered. The none examination of said witness has weaken the case of the prosecution. Further as stated above the testimony of PW1, is not believable because as per his own version he was not present at the spot at the time of incident. The testimony of PW2 Ct. Naresh is inadmissible in evidence as same has not been completed by prosecution. PW3 is the formal witness and deposed about receiving the information of arrest of accused and handing over the document and articles seized as per seizure memo in this case, he is also not the witness of incident. PW4 HC Ramesh Chand and PW5 are not the witnesses of the spot and are the witnesses of the investigation done in this case has proved the document prepared during the investigation and has exhibited the same. More over the case property has never been produced in this court which also create doubt in the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. In a case titled as Sunil Kumar Sharma Vs. State ILR (2007) I Delhi 1344, it was held that :
that in a criminal trial the accused must be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved to be guilty and that the onus of the prosecution shifts. Evidence Non examination of material witness - casts serious doubts on prosecution version. The prosecution has not examined Inspector D.M. Sharma, or Sub Inspector Rai Singh , who according to it had apprehended the appellant while he was attempting to run away from the spot. Non examination of these persons creates a serious holes on the prosecution version in relation to above conduct of the appellant......"
Contd..........
/9/
13. From the perusal of material produced on record I come to the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused. As per witnesses the incident was occurred at service road nearby taxi pre paid booth, Ajmeri Gate side, which is crowded place and many public persons were available there, but, IO has not made any effort to join any public witness which certainly hampered the case of the prosecution.
To this effect I rely upon observations taken in various cases such as "The State of Punjab Vs. Gurmej Singh" 1991 (2), Criminal Report 361, " The State of Punjab Vs. Gurnam Singh" 1991 (3), Criminal Report 412 (C.C. Cases) [HC 345] wherein it was held that : " That failure of the Investigation Officer to join independent witnesses of the locality in investigation sound the death knell of the prosecution case set up against the accused, conviction based by the learned trial court on the statements of the police and excise officials cannot be sustained in and the accused is entitled to secure an acquittal on this score." 14 Further , the MHC(M) has not been examined by the prosecution to prove the deposit of the buttondar knife in the Malkhana and that the same remained in sealed and intact position in his custody. Even otherwise no witness has deposed that the case property was deposited in the Malkhana which certainly creates doubt in the prosecution story and benefit of same Contd..........
/10/ goes to the accused. I also rely upon the observations taken in the case titled as " Paramjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab" High Court of Punjab & Haryana (1), RCR 268 wherein it was observed that :
" If no independent witness was joined - sample sealed at the spot - no evidence that sample sealed was deposited in Malkhana, accused acquitted given benefit of doubt"
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion and facts and circumstances of the case I come to the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused. Hence, accused Gurmail Singh S/o Sardar Raghubir Singh is hereby acquitted for the offence in question. Bail bonds of accused are cancelled. Surety is discharged. Case property be disposed of in accordance with law. Let file be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY 19.9.2007 (SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI IN THE COURT OF SH. SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : M.M. DELHI STATE VS. SUSHIL KUMAR FIR NO: 130/06 P. S. HNDRS JUDGEMENT U/S 355 Cr.P.C .:
a) Serial No. of the case : 25/07 b) Date of offence : 28.11.2006 c) Offence complained of : 170/419/420 IPC d) Name of complainant : Najir Abas e) Name of accused, his : Sushil Kumar S/o Mukesh Kumar parentage & residence R/o Village and Post, Dhansar, P.S Jalalpur, Distt. Chhapra, Bihar. f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty. g) Final order : h) Date of institution of case : 20.1.2007 i) Date on which case reserved : 13.9.2007 for judgment j) Date of judgment : BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION: 1 Briefly stating, as per case of prosecution, the accused has been
facing trial on the allegation that on 28.11.2006 at about 11 A.M, at PF No. 4 HNDRS , within the jurisdiction of P.S. HNDRS, he pretended to Nazir Abbas that he hold government office as a TTE as public servant and having Contd..........
/2/ knowledge that he did not hold any such office and as such assumed character committed cheating with the railway under the colour of such office. Further the accused has also been facing trial on the allegation that on that above said date, time and place he cheated the above said complainant Nazir Abbas by dishonestly inducing him to deliver his reservation railway ticket stating himself as holding the Govt. office as TTE and would confirm the waiting reservation ticket of complainant consequently the reservation ticket were delivered to him by the aforesaid complainant which caused wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gain to the accused . Thus a case for offence punishable u/s 170/419/420 IPC has been registered against the accused. The IO after completion of investigation has filed the chargesheet before the court.
2 The accused was supplied with copies of chargesheet and on the basis of material on record, he was charged for offence punishable u/s 170/420 IPC vide order of this court dated 7.3.200 . When the charge was readover and explained to accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3 To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined 15 witnesses in support of its case.
4 The first witness examined by prosecution was PW1 Ct. OM Parkash , who deposed that on 28.11.2006 he was on duty at railway Contd..........
/3/ reservation Nizamuddin. At about 12 - 12.40 pm , reservation clerk Dinesh, who was performing his duty at counter NO. 506 called him and instruct to hold the accused Sushil Kumar and narrated that the accused has moved cancellation form for cancellation of reservation ticket which was already lost and tagged. PW1 has further deposed that he apprehended accused Sushil whom him correctly identified and sent information to IPF A.K. Sharma of post Nizammuddin through his mobile and after receiving the information he alongwith SI Hosiyar Singh reached at spot and PW1 handedover accused Sushil to them , thereafter the case was registered against the accused and police recorded his statement in this regard. Said witness has been cross examined by accused himself. In his cross examination PW1 has deposed that On the day of incident he was on duty at reservation hall and other area. At about 12.25 pm Dinesh Raghav called him. He further denied that accused was beaten by the 4 police officials. He further deposed that he did not take personal search of accused and the ticket and requisition form was not recovered from the possession of the accused same was handedover Dinesh Raghav to SI Hosiyar Singh. He further denied that he was deposing falsely.
5 PW2 was Dinesh Singh Raghav, ERC, Nizammuddin Reservation Counter. Delhi. He has deposed that on 28.11.2006 he was on duty at Contd..........
/4/ railway reservation Nizamuddin at about 12 .25 pm as reservation clerk and was performing duty at counter NO. 506 . Meanwhile accused Sushil Kumar produced one ticket Ex. P1 alongwith cancellation form Ex. P2 for cancellation of ticket, after showing himself Nazir Abas. He feed the particular of the aforesaid tikcket PNR Number in the computer and found that the aforesaid ticket belonging to Trivendram Rajdhani Express train dated 28.11.2006, 2nd A/C for 3 persons was already lost and tagged , and his office already received the information that the aforesaid ticket was already tagged. He further deposed that accused has fraudulently induced him to cancel the same. He called Ct. Om Parkash of RPF and instruct him to hold the accused Sushil Kumar as the accused was committing fraud by moving cancellation form for cancellation of reservation ticket which was already lost and tagged. Ct. Om Parkash apprehended accused Sushil , the accused has also correctly identified by PW2 and sent information to IPF A.K. Sharma of post Nizammuddin through his mobile and after receiving the information he alongwith SI Hosiyar Singh reached at spot Ct. Om Parkash handedover accused Sushil to them , thereafter the case was registered against the accused and police recorded statement of PW2 in this regard. This witness was also cross examined by accused and in his cross examination PW2 has deposed that at the time of incident Ct. Om Parkash Contd..........
/5/ was at duty at reservation complex. He called him at his counter and suddenly reached there. Whenever requisition form was submitted to the counter after checking the same the amount and PNR Number was mentioned on requisition form and the requisition form Ex. P2 shown to witness which was found no endorsement mentioned in it. To which PW2 has replied that same is not mentioned in the requisition form as the aforesaid endorsement has been made after cancellation of ticket as in this case no cancellation was complete , hence no endorsement was made at the document Ex. P2. He further deposed that he handedover the ticket Ex. P1 and requisition form Ex. P2 to RPF Ct. Om Parkash . He cannot tell the exact time for cancellation or reservation of railway ticket as it depends upon the circumstances. After the aforesaid incident he remained at his duty at same counter. He handedover the ticket and form to Ct. Om Parkash and not to SI Hosiyar Singh, if in his police statement it was recorded that he handedover the same to SI Hosiyar Singh. He cannot tell the reason for the same confronted the statement Ex. D1 where it was so recorded. He further denied that accused did not produced the aforesaid ticket and railway requisition form for cancellation of same or he was deposing falsely. 6 PW3 HC Keshwanand has deposed about registration of FIR in the present case and has proved the copy of FIR Ex. PW3/A and endorsement on the original rukka as Ex. PW3/B. Contd..........
/6/ 7 PW4 SI Hosiyar Singh, and PW5 Insptl. Anil Kumar Sharma are the RPF official and both of them have reached the spot after receiving the information of apprehension of accused. Both of them have reiterated the version of each other and have fully supported the case of the prosecution . Both of the them have deposed that on 28.11.2006 they were posted at RPF post at Nizamuddin . On that day they were present at post at about 12.30 pm Ct. Om Parkash informed them that one person was apprehended by him at reservation centre at Nizammuddin through telephone. After receiving this information they reached at spot where Ct. Om Parkash , reservation clerk window NO. 506 Sh. Dinesh Kumar Raghav and person who was apprehended by him whose name came to later on Sushil Kumar met them. Reservation clerk Dinesh Kumar Raghav stated that accused Sushil Kumar reached at counter for cancellation reservation ticket which was already tagged , he also stated that accused Sushil Kumar committed fraud for doing the cancellation of tagged reservation ticket. Accused Sushil Kumar was interrogated by Insp. A.K. Sharma/PW5 , accused admitted that he came at PF No. 4 where Trivendrum Rajdhani Express was stationed and the said tagged ticket was obtained fraudulently from one passenger of the aforesaid train with assurance that same was confirmed by him as it was in waiting list. Thereafter inquiry was made with the passenger Nazir Abas who has actually Contd..........
/7/ possessed the said ticket , he informed them that accused cheated him and taken the said ticket and he has informed to TT about the said ticket and same was tagged at his instance. Accused Sushil Kumar who is present in the court today i.e. at the time of recording of statement of aforesaid PWs was took into possession alongwith ticket and reservation form . Thereafter they reached at PS HNDRS and after handingover the accused to police alongwith ticket and form moved a written complaint to the police in this regard Ex. PW4/A, the ticket and reservation form was seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/B. They further proved the ticket as Ex. P1 and reservation form as Ex. . P2. Accused gave disclosure statement to police in their presence Ex. PW4/C and thereafter accused was arrested and conducted personal search by the police PW4/D and E as well as police recorded their statement.
8 Both the aforesaid witnesses have also been cross examined by accused. PW4 SI Hosiyar Singh in his cross has deposed that at the spot the accused was apprehended by Ct. Om Parkash and reservation clerk was also present there. They reached at the spot at about 12.40 pm. He did not conduct personal search of the accused. He was not the first IO of the case. The ticket Ex. P1 and requisition form Ex. P2 was handedover to Inspt. A.K. Sharma by reservation Clerk, Dinesh Kumar Raghav. He further denied Contd..........
/8/ that the requisition form Ex. P2 was not handedover by him to reservation clerk and the requisition form Ex. P2 was forcibly written by the police by him as well as that the reservation ticket Ex. P1 and requisition form Ex. P 2 falsely planted upon the accused by the police he was deposing falsely being official witness. In his cross examination PW5 Inspector Anil Kumar Sharma has deposed that when they reached at the spot , accused was present at reservation Centre with Ct, Om Parkash. He denied that he did not go to spot with SI Hosiyar Singh and did not conduct the personal search of the accused as well as that accused did not produce the reservation ticket Ex. P1 and requisition form Ex. P2 to the reservation clerk for cancellation of same or the witness was deposing falsely.
9 PW6 Smt. Malwika Benerjee, CRS, Hazrat Nizammudin Railway Station. Delhi has deposed that on 28.11.2006 she was posted at Hazarat Nizammudin Railway Station as a CRS, on that day she was on duty , she received information through telephone from Vikram, ENRC, one fake bearing PNR No. 2232997235 Nizammuddin to Trivendrum of train No. 2432 for immediate taking action . Thereafter she instructed the clerk to fix the tag regarding lost of ticket. Thereafter accused had come to another counter NO. 506 for cancel reservation ticket which was already tagged regarding lost of ticket and accused apprehended by the reservation clerk of counter Contd..........
/9/ No. 506. Thereafter counter clerk informed to police and reached there and thereafter counter clerk produced fake ticket and accused to the police. PW6 has further deposed that the accused was interrogated by the police in her presence, thereafter she handedover photocopy of daily diary and had attested the same Ex. PW6/A . She had brought the original daily diary which was seen and returned. The fake ticket shown to witness which she correctly identified the same vide Ex. P1. She further stated that her statement was recorded by the police and has correctly identified the accused as the persons who come at counter No. 506 to cancel the said reservation ticket. In her cross PW6 has deposed that she had fixed tag after receiving information through railway telephone. She admitted that there is telephone facility in the Rajdhani Express and she have personally seen the telephone facility as stated in the Rajdhani Express. PW6 had further deposed in his cross that the ticket is tagged of the genuine passenger if the same is found to be fake one and she had not personally received the message. She informed one Dinesh Rawat, Counter Clerk regarding lost of ticket. She has denied that she was deposing falsely and had not verified the genuiness of ticket as well as have no personal knowledge of this case. 10 PW7 Vikram Singh, E&RC, NZM has deposed that on 28.11.2006 he was posted at Hazrat Nizammudding Railway Station as a E& Contd..........
/10/ RC . On that day he was on duty at current counter 577 since morning and received information regarding theft of reservation ticket no. 2232997235 of train No. 2432 of Trivendrum Rajdhani Express from one passenger namely Nasir Abbas by one persons who produced as a TT himself through telephone from S.P. Gupta, TS. Thereafter , he informed Smt. Malwika Benerjee regarding the aforesaid incident through telephone for tagging the said ticket and his statement was recorded by the police. 11 PW8 HC Maheshwar had deposed that on 28.11.2006 he was posted HNDRS as a Head Constable. On that day he participated in the investigation of present case. Thereafter he alongwith Insp. Shashibala reached at spot i.e. at reservation counter No. 506, Hazrat Nizzamuddin Railway Station, there SI Hosiar Singh and Insp. Anil Sharma and Ct. Om Parkash met them and SI Hosiyar Singh produced one fake reservation ticket No. 3232997235 train No. 2432 dated 28.11.2006 Hazarat Nizammuddin to Trivendrum and one cancellation form No. 257, thereafter IO seized the aforesaid documents vide seizure memo already Ex. PW4/B and SI Hosiar Singh also produced the accused to IO, thereafter accused was interrogated during interrogation he made disclosure statement Ex. PW4/C, and thereafter reservation clerk Dinesh Raghav narrated all the facts to the IO. Thereafter accused was arrested and conducted personal search already Ex.
Contd..........
/11/ PW4/E and PW4/D. The fake ticket and cancellation form No. 257 shown to witness which are already placed in judicial file, witness/PW8 has correctly identified the same, vide Ex. P1 and P2 collectively and deposed that his statement was recorded by the IO as well as correctly identified the accused. In the cross examination PW8 has deposed that on IO received the information regarding the incident at around 12 noon. Accused was arrested near the reservation counter No. 506. Accused was taken into police station after arrest. At about 3.pm or 3.30 pm we reached at PS. Accused was arrested at about 2 pm 2.15 pm. The accused remained at the spot about 3 and 4 hours for purpose of completing the written proceeding while the IO prepared the document. He further deposed that 5 to 7 papers were prepared at the reservation counter, first of all IO prepared the seizure memo, thereafter disclosure statement was recorded. At that time of preparing the document he, SI Hosiar singh, Ct. Om Parkash and Inp. Anil Kumar were present. The cancellation form was not filled in his presence and denied that he was deposing falsely.
12 PW9 Sh. Sharad Parkash Gupta, Deputy Train Superintendent , New Delhi has deposed that on 28.11.2006 he was deputed Train Superintendent in Rajdhani Express No. 2432, when train was started immediately one person namely Nasir Abbas came to him and told that his Contd..........
/12/ ticket No. 2232997235 Nizamuddin to Trivendrum has been taken by someone for confirming the same. Thereafter he informed to his Department regarding stolen of ticket and informed on telephone which was received by Vikram Singh E&RC to tagging the ticket for lost of same and he statement was recorded by the police. In his cross PW9 has deposed that he informed regarding stolen of aforesaid ticket through mobile which was belonging to some passenger. The persons came to him disclosed his name Nasir Abbas. His officers allow to travel to Nasir Abbas without any charge after showing his identity and denied that he was deposing falsely. 13 PW10 Nazir Abas was the main victim and complainant in the present case he has fully supported the case of the prosecution and have correctly identified the accused as the person who has taken his ticket for confirming the same. He has deposed that he was working in Air Port Authority as Technical Engineer. On 28.11.2006 he alongwith with his mother and wife reached at Hazrat Nizammuddin Station to board a train Rajdhani Trivendrum Express No. 2432 vide PNR No. 2232997235. His ticket was in waiting list No. 20,21,22 and the same was converted into RAC and seats were allotted in A3 coach and the same were occupied by them. At around 10.55 am one persons ( accused in the present case and correctly identified by the witness) came to him and told that he was TT and asked Contd..........
/13/ him whether his i.e complainant's ticket is in RAC and he had known the name of the complainant and asked name and told that your ticket is confirmed and the same is allotted in A1 coach thereafter he said wait for some time he will be right back. One minute before departure he again came to him and told to follow him with luggage and your tickets and demanded his tickets for make an entry into register. Complainant/PW10 gave ticket to him. When the complainant/PW10 was busy in lifting his luggage the accused has escaped from the spot. Complainant /PW10 tried to locate the accused in the train but not successful and during that train has started moving. He heard the announcement that nobody should shown or give ticket to stranger it would be misused. PW10 though that he was duped by accused and he immediately informed the train supdt. Sh. S.P. Gupta. Sh. S.P. Gupta about the same to railway authorities and also for tagging the ticket. Thereafter S.P. Gupta told him to go back to your seats and after about 15 - 20 minutes he came to his seat and informed that accused was apprehended while canceling tickets. The original ticket was correctly identified by the witnesses/PW10 which is already exhibited as P1. In his cross examination PW10/complainant he deposed that he is literate person, have traveled many time via Indian Railway and cannot recalled weather I have traveled 50 times or 100 times but he can recognize a Contd..........
/14/ advocate as well as TT from his rob/ uniform. He further deposed that accused was not in uniform while he took complainant' s ticket. He admitted that Rajdhani Express is a VIP train and TT of aforesaid train always wear uniform as well as after giving his ticket he heard announcement. He did not recollect at what time train arrived at the station and he gave ticket to accused because he told him that he was TT. Such incident has also took with him earlier. Again said no such incident has been taken place with him earlier. He further deposed in his cross that he have gave the ticket to accused on the pretext that he advised him to follow towards the coach No. A1 as such he handed over the ticket to accused. He further admit that the accused was not having any batch or not in uniform of TT and accused was not wearing any naming plate. PW10 has denied that he was deposing falsely and accused has been falsely implicated in this case. 14 PW11 Sanjeev Kumar , Sr. Scientific Officer, FSL, Rohni , Delhi has deposed that on 9.1.2007 he was posted at FSL as Sr. Scientific Officer. He received questioned document alongwith specimen documents and the same is examined by him and the detailed report prepared by him is Ex. PW11/A in which he opined that the person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and mark S1 to S15 also wrote the red enclosed writing. Similarly the stamped and Mark Q1 and his report is correct. In his cross Contd..........
/15/ examination by accused PW11 had deposed that he is M. Sc in Applied Physics from Punjab University, Patiala in 1997. He joined this post on Oct. 2006. He cannot recalled how many document he have examined. He have examined more than 100 and below 1000. He do not have any diploma or advance diploma for examining the documents being hand writing expert. He have used sterio zoom microscope , VSC 2000 etc for examining said documents. He took 20 days in examining the said documents. Basic examination was done by him however he have taken help of his subordinate staff working under his supervision. He admitted that some one giving a specimen signature or handwriting mens rea is also important aliment and there were natural variation is always there in the handwriting. He further admitted that deterioration is there in the handwriting from time to time. He denied that he have given his report Ex. PW11/A on the instance of IO.
15 PW13 Ct. Rajender has deposed that on 10.1.2007 he was posted at PS HNDRS as Ct. On said day SHO gave him authority letter to bring result from FSL. He went to FSL and took sealed pullanda with the seal of FSL and the same was handedover to IO Inpt. Shashi Bala. He further deposed that during his custody nothing has been tampered and seal remained intact and IO recorded his statement. This witness has not been cross examined by accused.
Contd..........
/16/ 16 PW14 was Sh. Ajay Goel, Ld. M.M. Delhi, he deposed that on 29.4.2006 one application with request to obtain the specimen signature as well as writing of accused Sushil Kumar was moved by IO at which the signature as well as specimen writing of the accused was obtained at blank papers at serial No. S1 to S15. The same is attested by him and he proved the said papers vide Ex. PW14/a to Ex. PW14/15.
17 The last witness examined by prosecution was PW15, Inspector Shashi Bala, Additional SHO P.S. HNDRS, She has deposed that on 28.11.2006 she was posted at PS HNDRS. On that day at about 6.30 p, SI Hoshiar Singh RPF brought the accused Sushil Kumar whom she correctly identified and after handing over the accused, he moved on written complaint on behalf of Inspector A.K. Sharma at which he also put his signature. The said complaint is Ex. PW4/A. She further deposed that the case was registered on the said complaint and the investigation of the said case was delivered to her. SI Hoshiar Singh handedover the ticket as well as requisition form, which was produced by the accused, she took into possession the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/B and the requisition form is Ex. P1 and P2. She recorded the disclosure statement of accused Ex. PW4/C. Thereafter accused was arrested and conducted personal search memo Ex. PW4/D and PW4/E. During the investigation she also took into Contd..........
/17/ possession of the photocopy of CRS diary dated 28.11.2006 vide seizure memo Ex. PW15/A. The copy of the same is already exhibited as PW6/A. IO also took into possession the photocopy of the complaint given by passenger Nazir Abbas vide seizure memo Ex. PW15/B. The copy of the same is mark A. PW15 has further testified that reservation charge and photo copy of the attendance register of TTE was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW15/C. The copy of same is Ex. PW15/D . She also stated that during the investigation she also sent the specimen signatures of accused for FSL at which the positive result was obtained from FSL the same is Ex. PW11/A. PW15 has further deposed that she recorded statement of witnesses and after completion of investigation prepared the challan. In her cross examination by accused, PW15 has deposed that the offence was committed by the accused at about 11 am, she do not know during the period between the 11 am to 6.30 pm where the accused was kept. He further volunteered that same fact can be stated by SI Hoshiar Singh. HC Maheswar was joined in the investigation of this case. She do not remember whether on the day of incident she went to reservation counter at about 12.30 noon . She recorded the statement of Dinesh Raghav and she do not know whether the disclosure statement of the accused was recorded by any other person except her or not. No other witenss has been examined by prosecution and accordingly prosecution evidence was closed on 31.8.2007.
Contd..........
/18/ 18 Statement of accused was recorded on 13.9.2007, wherein accused has denied all the incrimination evidence when the same was put to him and deposed that it is a false case and he had been falsely implicated in this case. However the accused has refused to lead evidence in his defence. 19 I have heard the submissions of APP for the State and accused in persons as well as carefully gone through the material produced on record.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY (SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI IN THE COURT OF SH. SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : M.M. DELHI ORDER ON SENTENCE Present: APP for State.
Accused The accused has been convicted for offence punishable u/s ____________ vide separate judgment of this court dated ___________.
Heard on the point of sentence.
File be consigned to Record Room. Copy of judgment as well as of this order be given to the accused free of cost.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY (SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI IN THE COURT OF SH. SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : M.M. DELHI STATE VS. VIJAY SINGH FIR NO: 105/07 P. S. NDLS JUDGEMENT U/S 355 Cr.P.C .:
a) Serial No. of the case : 160/07 b) Date of offence : 29.3.2007 c) Offence complained of : 170/171/420 IPC d) Name of complainant : Manoj e) Name of accused, his : Vijay Singh S/o Jhabar Singh parentage & residence R/o H. No. 102, Gali No. 1, Tajpur, Road, opposite Kasanas School, Badarpur, New Delhi. f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty. g) Final order : Convicted h) Date of institution of case : 9.5.2007 i) Date on which case reserved : 24.9.2007 for judgment j) Date of judgment : 24.9.2007 (after lunch) BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION: 1 Briefly stating, as per case of prosecution, the accused has been
facing trial on the allegation that on 29.03.2007 at about 5.30 P.M, PF No. 8, New Delhi Railway Station within the jurisdiction of P.S. NDLS, he pretended to hold the office of TTE, Railway as a public servant to the Contd..........
/2/ complainant Manoj and in this regard he took Rs. 50/, which were recovered vide memo Mark A, from complainant for granting permission to travel in Sleeper Class of Paschim Expres Train having knowledge that he did not hold any such office and as such assumed character committed cheating with above said complainant under the colour of such office. The accused has also been facing trial on the allegation that on the above said date, time and place he was not belonging to Class of TTE wore the grab of such a class of public servant as TTE namely name plate and uniform of TTE with the intention that it may be believed that he belonging to that class of TTE and same was recovered from his possession vide memo Mark A as well as on the above said date, time and place he cheated the above said complainant by dishonestly inducing him to deliver money stating himself as holding office of TTE, Railway and consequently received Rs. 50/ for granting permission to travel in the Sleeper Class in the said train which caused wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gain to the accused. Thus a case for offence punishable u/s 170/171/420 IPC has been registered against the accused. The IO after completion of investigation has filed the chargesheet before the court.
2 The accused was supplied with copies of chargesheet and on the basis of material on record, he was charged for offence punishable Contd..........
/3/ u/s 170/171/420 IPC vide order of this court dated 4.6.2007. When the charge was readover and explained to accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3 To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined as many as 4 witnesses out of 5 witnesses cited in the list of witnesses, in support of its case.
4 The first witness examined by prosecution was PW1 Ct. Manoj and PW2 SI Sohan Lal are the witnesses of apprehension and investigation done in this case. Both of them have fully supported the case of the prosecution and has correctly identfiied the accused as well as the case property when the same was produced before them during recording of their statement. Both of them have deposed that on 29.3.2007 they were posted PS NDLS, on that day they were on patrolling duty at PF No. 8/9 NDLs. At about 5.30 pm when they reached at coach No. S8 of Paschim Express which was stationed at PF No. 8, there one complainant Manoj Kumar met them and pointed out towards accused who was wearing uniform of TT and he also fixed on his uniform a name plate of Mirtinjay Kumar. And thereafter accused was overpowered. They further deposed that IO/PW2 interrogated accused and asked him to produce his I card, but accused did not produce the same. The accused was carrying reservation chart, reservation Contd..........
/4/ form and Rs. 50/ which was given by the complainant and one general ticket New Delhi to Mathura in his right hand. Thereafter IO/PW2 seized the aforesaid articles and prepared pullanda of aforesaid articles with white cloths and duly sealed with seal of SLM and aforesaid case property taken into police possession vide memo Ex. PW1/A. IO/PW2 also seized one black coloured pant and one white shirt which the accused was wearing and kept the same in same pullanda. IO/PW2 prepared rukka Ex. PW2/A on the basis of complainant's statement and got the FIR registered through Ct. Manoj Kumar/PW1. Both the witnesses have further proved the IO/PW2 prepared site plan Ex. PW2/B at the instance of complainant, arrested accused and conducted vide personal search memo Ex. PW1/B and C, recorded disclosure statement of accused Ex. PW2/C as well as also recorded statement of witnesses.
5 PW3 has deposed about registration of FIR in the present case and has proved the copy of FIR Ex. PW3/A and endorsement on the original rukka as Ex. PW3/B. 6 Complainant Manoj Kumar who was the star witness of the prosecution have also supported the case of the prosecution and have correctly identified the accused as the person who committed offence in question with him. He deposed that on 29.3.2007 he reached at PF No. 8/9 of NDLS for Contd..........
/5/ going to Mathura. One person was standing near general coach of paschim Express stationed at PF No. 8 with name plate of Mirtinjay Kumar TTE. I requested to provide him a seat in sleeper class. He asked the complainant to pay Rs. 50 for providing sea in sleeper class on which complainant doubt to be a forged TT. In the meantime Ct. Manoj arrived there and he told about TTE who interrogated him accused disclosed his name as Vijay Singh and told that he is not the TTE. He further proved his statement Ex. PW4/A, seizure memo Ex. PW1/A, personal search memo Ex. PW1/C and arrest memo Ex. PW1/B. No other witness has been examined by prosecution. Accordingly PE was closed vide order dated 21.9.2007. 7 In his statement recorded on 24.9.2007 the accused has denied the all incriminating evidence put to him and deposed that he was innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The accused has not opted to lead any evidence in his defence.
8 I have heard the submission of Ld. APP and of accused in person and have carefully gone through the record. 9 The prosecution has put the allegations against the accused are that he pretented himself as a TTE and wore the uniform and name plate of TTE and by his said act he cheated the complainant for a sum of Rs. With the pretext granted complainant to travel in the sleeper class, which caused Contd..........
/6/ wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gain to accused for committing theft of purse of complainant and to this effect prosecution examined 4 witnesses who have fully supported the case of the prosecution. The prosecution examined PW1 Ct. Manoj, PW2 SI Sohan Lal and the eyewitness/complainant in the present case namely Manoj as PW4, all of them have fully supported the case of the prosecution and has proved the date, time and place of the incident and apprehension of the accused at the spot. The testimony of all the aforesaid witnesses remained unrebutted as accused has failed to cross examine all of them when they were examined in court. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, I have no reason to disbelieve the testimony of aforesaid as they have proved the case of the prosecution in well manner. There are no material contradiction in the statement of aforesaid witnesses. The accused has simply denied the case of the prosecution in his statement and has refused to lead any evidence in his defence regarding committing the offence in question on the date of incident which also create doubt on the credibility of the accused. 10 In order to prove the allegations by the prosecution for offence punishable U/s. 420 IPC, the prosecution was to prove the essential ingredient as defined U/s. 415 IPC : Contd..........
/7/
(a) A person deceives any person.
(b) He fraudulently or dishonestly induces
the person so deceived -
i) to deliver any property to any person, or
ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property.
(c) He intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit anything which he would not do or omit if not deceived and which act etc. causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person.
In the definition there are set forth two separate classes of acts which the person deceived may be induced to do. In the first place he may be induced fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver any property to any person. The second class of acts set forth in the section is the doing or omitting to do anything which the person deceived would not do or omit to do if he were not so deceived. In the first class of cases the inducing must be fraudulent or dishonest. In the second class of acts, the inducing must be international but not fraudulent or dishonest - as observed in case titled as " Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma Vs. State of Bihar" (2000) 4 SCC 168.
In order to constitute an offence of cheating the intention to deceive should be in existence at the time when the inducement was made. A mere failure to keep up promise subsequently cannot be presumed as an act leading to cheating - as observed in case titled as " S.N. Palanitkar Vs. State of Bihar" 2 001 Cr. LJ 4565 (SC).
Contd..........
/8/ 11 Hence in view of the above discussion and the facts and circumstances of the case, I have no hesitation in my mind to coming into conclusion that it was only accused who on the date time and place of the incident has committed the offence of inducing the complainant to deliver money stating himself as holding office of TTE, Railway and consequently received Rs. 50/or granting permission to travel in the sleeper class in the said train which caused wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gain to accused. Accordingly the accused Vijay Singh S/o Jhabbar Singh is hereby convicted for offence punishable u/s 420 IPC.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY 24.9.2007 (SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI IN THE COURT OF SH. SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : M.M. DELHI STATE VS. VIJAY SINGH FIR NO: 105/07 P. S. NDLS ORDER ON SENTENCE Present: APP for State.
Accused in J/C. The accused has been convicted for offence punishable u/s 420 IPC vide separate judgment of this court dated 24.9.2007.
Heard on the point of sentence.
The accused/convict submits that he belongs to a very poor family. He further submits that he is in J/C in this case since 29.3.2007. He further submits that he is the only earning member of his family and prayed for a lenient view.
Considering the nature of the offence and socio, economic condition of the accused, accused is sentenced to 6 months RI with fine Rs. 5000/ , I/D 30 days SI in this case U/s 420 IPC. Benefit of Section 428 Cr. P.C. is awarded to the accused. Case property be disposed off in accordance with law.
File be consigned to Record Room. Copy of judgment as well as of this order be given to the accused free of cost.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY 24.9.2007 (SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI IN THE COURT OF SH. SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : M.M. DELHI STATE VS. IBRAHIM FIR NO: 410/98 P.S. RMD JUDGEMENT U/S 355 Cr.P.C .:
a) Serial No. of the case : 45/03 b) Date of offence : 11.9.98 c) Offence complained of : 25/54/59 of Arms Act. d) Name of complainant : HC Netrapal Singh e) Name of accused, his : Ibrahim S/o Mohd. Yusuf parentage & residence R/o H. No. 53, Mohalla, Talibagan, P.S. Bazia Yakur, Calcutta, West Bengal. (Accused has been declared Proclaimed Offender (PO), in this case vide order dated 19.9.2002) f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty g) Final order : Acquitted in absentia h) Date of institution of case : 26.6.2003 i) Date on which case reserved : 25.9.2007 for judgment j) Date of judgment : 25.9.2007 BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION: 1 Briefly stating, as per case of prosecution, the accused who has
been declared Proclaimed Offender in this case vide order dated 19.9.2002 , had been facing trial on the allegation that on 11.9.98 at about 8.50 am at Contd..........
/2/ PF No. 7/9, near the Reservation Chart, RMD within the jurisdiction of PS RMD, was found in possession of one buttandar knife in contravention of notification issued by Delhi Administration and thus a case for offence punishable u/s 25/54/59 of Arms Act has been registered against the accused. The IO after completion of investigation has filed the chargesheet before the court.
2 As stated above the accused has remained absented and has been declared PO in this case vide order dated 19.9.2002. After that case was adjourned for PE u/s 299 Cr.P.C and prosecution has examined only one witness Ct. Dayanand, who deposed about investigation done in this case and has proved/exhibited the document prepared during the investigation as he was patrolling alongwith the IO on the aforesaid , date , time and place of incident as well as deposed about apprehension of accused alongwith buttandar knife.
3 I have heard the submissions of APP for the State and carefully gone through the material produced on record. 4 The present case pertains to the year 1998 and the accused was declared PO in this case on 9.9.2002 . Thereafter the matter was adjourned for several time for prosecution evidence u/s 299 Cr.P.C but no PW has came forward to depose against the accused except PW1 Ct. Dayanand Contd..........
/3/ who had proved/exhibited the documents during the course of the investigation. There are 4 witnesses cited in the list of witnesses and the complainant in this case has not examined. Even then all the witnesses cited by the prosecution are the police officials, there is no independent witness cited in the list of witnesses nor during the course of the proceeding or at the time of recovery despite the place where the accused was apprehended was a platform, which is thoroughfare but none from the public persons was joined. As per the case of the prosecution public persons were gathered there but IO did not noted down the name and addresses of the persons who refused to join the investigation. Therefore it seems that the IO has made the gospel story against the accused with the ulterior motive. The statement of witnesses recorded u/s 161 CrP.C has also recorded sterio type manner. Hence I do not found in justification to kept the case pending to record the testimony of the witnesses.
5 Further as per witnesses accused was apprehended at PF No. 7/9 at about 8.40 am ner the reservation chart which is a place where many public persons remain present for watching the status of their train and seats , but, IO has not made any effort to join any public witness which certainly hampered the case of the prosecution. To this effect I rely upon observations Contd..........
/4/ taken in various cases such as " The State of Punjab Vs. Gurmej Singh"
1991 (2), Criminal Report 361, " The State of Punjab Vs. Gurnam Singh"
1991 (3), Criminal Report 412 (C.C. Cases) [HC 345] wherein it was held that : " That failure of the Investigation Officer to join independent witnesses of the locality in investigation sound the deathknell of the prosecution case set up against the accused, conviction based by the learned trial court on the statements of the police and excise officials cannot be sustained in and the accused is entitled to secure an acquittal on this score."
6 MHC(M) has not been examined by the prosecution to prove the deposit of the buttondar knife in the Malkhana and that the same remained in sealed and intact position in his custody. I also rely upon the observations taken in the case titled as " Paramjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab" High Court of Punjab & Haryana (1), RCR 268 wherein it was observed that :
" If no independent witness was joined - sample sealed at the spot - no evidence that sample sealed was deposited in Malkhana, accused acquitted given benefit of doubt"
Contd..........
/5/ 7 In view of the aforesaid discussion and facts and circumstances of the case I come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. Hence, accused is hereby Ibrahim S/o Mohd. Yusuf acquitted in absentia for the offence in question. Let file be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY 25.9.2007 (SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI IN THE COURT OF SH. SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : M.M. DELHI STATE VS. SABIR FIR NO: 648/98 P. S. RMD JUDGEMENT U/S 355 Cr.P.C .:
a) Serial No. of the case : 343/03 b) Date of offence : 27.12.98 c) Offence complained of : 379 IPC d) Name of complainant : Rajesh Kumar Ram e) Name of accused, his : Sabir S/o Tahir Hussain R/o parentage & residence Upper Coad Chirag Chan, Aligarh, U.P. Present addres Afasr ki Jhuggi, Gali No. 6, Chandrapuri, Kailash Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi. f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty. g) Final order : Acquitted. h) Date of institution of case : 26.6.2003 i) Date on which case reserved : 25.9.2007 for judgment j) Date of judgment : 25.9.2007 BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION: 1 Briefly stating, as per case of prosecution, the accused has been
facing trial on the allegation that on 27.12.98 at about 8.45 pm in the area of PF No. 17 , Old Delhi Railway Station within the jurisdiction of PS RMD, on Contd..........
/2/ stationary train Mandor Express train from coach No. S5 he committed theft of a brief case belonging to complainant Rajesh Kumar and thus a case for offence punishable u/s 379 IPC has been registered against the accused. The IO after completion of investigation has filed the chargesheet before the court.
2 The accused was supplied with copies of chargesheet and on the basis of material on record, he was charged for offence punishable u/s 379 IPC vide order of this court dated . When the charge was readover and explained to accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3 To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined only one witness i.e. PW1 HC Rajesh , who has deposed about registration of FIR in the present case and has proved the copy of FIR Ex. PW1 /A and endorsement on the original rukka as Ex. PW1/B. 4 I have perused the report on process issued to PWs. As per report on process issued to PW HC Mahipal , he has been suspended from the services and his present whereabout are not know. ' The other PWs i.e. Ct.
Kanwar Pal is absent despite service of summons. Further as per report on process issued to the PW Rajesh Kumar, who is complainant and eyewitnesses of the case, has been left the address given after selling the said house and his present whereabout are also known. The case is of year 1998 Contd..........
/3/ and charge in this case has been framed upon the accused in the year 2000, since then more than 6 years have been lapsed and prosecution had been granted sufficient opportunities to lead its entire evidence but despite that prosecution has examined on only one witnesses i.e. Duty officer HC Rajesh as PW1, who is otherwise formal witness. Hence in view of above discussion, I see no ground to adjourn the case for further prosecution evidence, which was accordingly closed.
5 As stated above as there is only one witness has been examined by prosecution i.e. PW1 HC Rajesh who has proved the registration of the FIR in the present case , as such there is no incriminating evidence against the accused on record. Accordingly statement of accused was also dispensed with and accused is acquitted for the offence with which he has been charged in this case. His bail bonds are cancelled. Surety discharged. Case property ( if,any) be disposed of in accordance with law. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY 25.9.2007 (SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI IN THE COURT OF SH. SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : M.M. DELHI STATE VS. RAM KISHAN FIR/CC NO: 42/98 P. S. RPF/NDLS JUDGEMENT U/S 355 Cr.P.C .:
a) Serial No. of the case : 354/03 b) Date of offence : 16.8.98 c) Offence complained of : 3 RP(UP) Act. d) Name of complainant : SI K.S. Tiwari e) Name of accused, his : Ram Kishan S/o Sh. Kishan parentage & residence R/o C/24 B552, Pusta Vijay Ghat, Indira Colony Basti Data Ram, Delhi. f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty. g) Final order : Convicted h) Date of institution of case : 26.6.2003 i) Date on which case reserved : 26.09.2007 for judgment j) Date of judgment : 26.09.2007 BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION: 1 Briefly stating, as per case of prosecution, the accused has been
facing trial on the allegation that 16.8.98 at about 21.30 hours at PF No. 10 11, Delhi side, within the jurisdiction of RPF/NDLS he was apprehended by RPF staff and was found in possession of one booked package belonging to the Railway Department and reasonably suspected of having been stolen or Contd..........
/2/ obtained unlawfully and thus a case for offence punishable u/s 3 of RP(UP) Act, 1996 has been registered against the accused. The IO after completion of investigation has filed the chargesheet before the court. 2 Copies of complaint and other documents were supplied to the accused and case was fixed for precharge evidence vide order dated 19.5.99. During precharge evidence, prosecution examined PW1 K.S Subramanium, PW2 P.K. Chawla, PW3 and SI K.S. Tiwari after that pre charge P.E. was closed. Thereafter, charge for offence U/S 3RP(UP) Act was framed against the accused on 4.4.2001 , to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3 PW1 Sh. K.S. Subramanium, has deposed about booking of case property and have correctly identified the case property belonging to railway and proved his report in this regard Ex. PW1/A. PW2 P.K. Chawla has deposed about issuance of memo Ex. PW2/A in respect ofone package No. 6147 which was in his charge and was found missing from his duty beat. He has also correctly identified the case property. PW3 SI K.S. Tiwari and PW4 SI R.B Parsad are the witnesses of recovery of case property from the possession of accused. Both of them have fully supported the case of the prosecution and has proved that the accused on the aforesaid date, time and place of the incident was found in possession of case property in question.
Contd..........
/3/ Both of them have also proved the investigation done in this case and documents prepared during the investigation as well exhibited the same vide ex. PW3/A seizure memo, PW3/B preparation of sample seal memo, PW3/C recording of disclosure statement, Ex. PW3/D pointing out memo and copy of Rojnamcha vide PW4/A. Both of said witnesses have also correctly identified the case property when the same was produced before them during recording of their statement in court. PW5 Ct. Dharambir Singh has deposed that on 16.8.98 he was posted at PS NDLS and stated that accused Ramesh Kishan was taken into custody in case crime No. 43/88 and has correctly identified the accused to be present before the court. 4 The accused in his statement recorded on 26.9.2007 has admitted to commit the offence in question as well as admitted the all incriminating evidence as true and correct and refused to lead any evidence in his defence and prayed for a lenient view.
5 I have heard the submission of Ld. APP and of accused in person and have carefully gone through the record. 6 In view of the above discussion as well as the statement of accused , wherein accused has admitted the offence in question , moreover the accused has not been cross examined the prosecution witnesses either at pre charge evidence stage or at after charge evidence. The accused on dated Contd..........
/4/ 10.9.2001 has also made statement that he do not want to cross examine the P1 to PW3 examined in pre charge evidence. I have come to the conclusion that it was only accused who on the aforesaid date, time and place mentioned, have committed the offence in question and thus a case for offence punishable u/s 3 RP (UP) Act 1966 is stand proved against him. 7 In the case titled as " The Public Prosecutor (A.P.) Vs. Shaik Galib and others" 1975 CRL.L.J.952 (A.P.), S. OBUL REDDI, C.J. it was held : " that the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act (1966), Section 3 - Seizure of suspected stolen railway property - No report of theft by Railway - Burden of proof. (Evidence Act (1872), Sections 101104). It is not necessary that there should be a report of the theft of the railway property. It is sufficient if the facts and circumstances disclose that the property is reasonably suspected of having been stolen. Once it is established that it is the railway property and it is reasonably suspected to have been stolen, the burden shifts upon the accused to show how he came into lawful possession of the same. The fact that no report of theft was made from the railway yard is not a ground for holding that the accused came into possession of the property by lawful means."
8 In another case titled as " Balkishan A. Devidayal Vs. State of Maharashtra" & " State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Hari & Ors." 1980 CRL. L. J. 1424, (SUPREME COURT). It was observed that : Contd..........
/5/ U/s. 25 - Police Officer - Officer of R.P.F. making inquiry in respect of offence under S. 3 of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act (1966), is not Police Officer .
The primary test for determining whether an officer is a Police Officer is : Whether the officer concerned under the Special Act, has been invested with all the powers exercisable by an officerin charge of a Police Station under Chapter XIV of the Criminal Procedure Code qua investigation of offences under that Act, including the power to initiate prosecution by submitting a report (charge sheet) under Section 173 of the Cr. P.C. of 1898. In order to bring him within the purview of the 'police officer' for the purpose of Section 1/25, Evidence Act, it is not enough to show that the exercises some or even many of the powers of a police officer conducting an investigation under the Code. Constitution of India, Art. 20 (3) "P erson accused of an offence" Person arrested under S. 6 of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act 1966 - Incriminating statements made by him during enquiry under S.8- Prosecution under S. 20 (3) not available."
9. In another case titled as " Salim Mohamed Babul Miniyar Vs. State of Maharashtra" 2001 CRL. L. J. 58 (BOMBAY) (Mrs.) Pratibha Upasani, J. in Cr. Revn. Appl. NO. 243 of 1994 it was held that : Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act (29 of 1966), Ss. 3(a), 8(1) - Unlawful possession of railway property - Accused voluntarily confessed that he had purchased stolen property of railway - Confessional statement recorded by RPF officer making enquiry under S. 8(1) - Is admissible in evidence as he is not a police officer under S. 162 Cr. P.C. Conviction based on said confessional statement - Not illegal.
Contd..........
/6/ 10 Prosecution witnesses have proved the date, time and place of offence and have also established the identity of accused and that of case property. There are no such contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses so as to disbelieve their testimony. Moreover, accused has admitted the allegations of prosecution against him. 13 In view of the aforesaid discussion I am of the view that prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly accused Ram Kishan S/o Sh. Kishan is convicted for offence U/S 3 RP(UP) Act.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY 26.9.2007 (SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI IN THE COURT OF SH. SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : M.M. DELHI STATE VS. RAM KISHAN FIR/CC NO: 34/94 P. S. RPF/NDLS JUDGEMENT U/S 355 Cr.P.C .:
a) Serial No. of the case : 155/07 b) Date of offence : 6.9.94 c) Offence complained of : 3 RP(UP) Act. d) Name of complainant : SI Aman Singh e) Name of accused, his : Ram Kishan S/o Kishan R/o parentage & residence C24/B552, Bela Road, Kisti Wala Pul, Indra Colony, Delhi. f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty. g) Final order : Convicted h) Date of institution of case : 19.8.2003 i) Date on which case reserved : 26.9.2007 for judgment j) Date of judgment : 26.09.07 (after lunch) BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION: 1 Briefly stating, as per case of prosecution, the accused has been
facing trial on the allegation that on 6.9.94 at about 22.15 hours between line , NDLS within the jurisdiction of RPF, NDLS , he was apprehended by RPF staff and was found in possession of one board package containing marka 693832 valued about Rs.7488/ belonging to the Railway Department and Contd..........
/2/ reasonably suspected of having been stolen or obtained unlawfully and thus a case for offence punishable u/s 3 of RP(UP) Act, 1996 has been registered against the accused. The IO after completion of investigation has filed the chargesheet before the court.
2 Copies of complaint and other documents were supplied to the accused and case was fixed for precharge evidence vide order dated 22.5.95. During precharge evidence, prosecution examined PW1 Surinder Singh, PW2 Virender Kumar, IPF, B.K. Ram after that precharge P.E. was closed. Thereafter, charge for offence U/S 3RP(UP) Act was framed against the accused on 3.3.2000 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3 PW1 Surinder Singh, Depot Store Keeper, Jagdhari has deposed about booking of the case property vide Ex. PW2/A and has identfied the case property which has been booked vide aforesaid exhibit and has also proved the identification report as Ex. PW21/B. PW2 Virender Kumar has proved the theft memo regarding the case property vide Ex. PW2/A and recording of his statement vide Ex. PW2/B. PW4 IPF B.K. Ram and PW5 Ram Singh are the witnesses of recovery of case property from the possession of accused. Both of them have fully supported the case of the prosecution and has proved that the accused on the aforesaid date, time and place of the incident was Contd..........
/3/ found in possession of case property in question. Both of them have also proved the investigation done in this case and documents prepared during the investigation as well exhibited the same vide ex. PW3/A seizure memo, PW3/B personal search memo of accused, PW3/C recording of disclosure statement, Ex. PW5/A pointing out memo and preparation of site plan Ex. PW5/B. Both of said witnesses have also correctly identified the case property when the same was produced before them during recording of their statement in court.
4 The accused in his statement recorded on 26.9.2007 has admitted to commit the offence in question as well as admitted the all incriminating evidence as true and correct and refused to lead any evidence in his defence and prayed for a lenient view.
5 I have heard the submission of Ld. APP and of accused in person and have carefully gone through the record. 6 In view of the above discussion as well as the statement of accused , wherein accused has admitted the offence in question , moreover the accused has not been cross examined the prosecution witnesses either at pre charge evidence stage or at after charge evidence. I have come to the conclusion that it was only accused who on the aforesaid date, time and place mentioned, have committed the offence in question and thus a case for offence punishable u/s 3 RP (UP) Act 1966 is stand proved against him.
Contd..........
/4/ 7 In the case titled as " The Public Prosecutor (A.P.) Vs. Shaik Galib and others" 1975 CRL.L.J.952 (A.P.), S. OBUL REDDI, C.J. it was held : " that the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act (1966), Section 3 - Seizure of suspected stolen railway property - No report of theft by Railway - Burden of proof. (Evidence Act (1872), Sections 101104). It is not necessary that there should be a report of the theft of the railway property. It is sufficient if the facts and circumstances disclose that the property is reasonably suspected of having been stolen. Once it is established that it is the railway property and it is reasonably suspected to have been stolen, the burden shifts upon the accused to show how he came into lawful possession of the same. The fact that no report of theft was made from the railway yard is not a ground for holding that the accused came into possession of the property by lawful means."
8. In another case titled as " Balkishan A. Devidayal Vs. State of Maharashtra" & " State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Hari & Ors." 1980 CRL. L. J. 1424, (SUPREME COURT). It was observed that : U/s. 25 - Police Officer - Officer of R.P.F. making inquiry in respect of offence under S. 3 of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act (1966), is not Police Officer .
The primary test for determining whether an officer is a Police Officer is : Whether the officer concerned under the Special Act, has been invested with all the powers exercisable by an officerin charge of a Police Station under Chapter XIV of the Criminal Procedure Code qua investigation of offences under that Act, including the power to Contd..........
/5/ initiate prosecution by submitting a report (charge sheet) under Section 173 of the Cr. P.C. of 1898. In order to bring him within the purview of the 'police officer' for the purpose of Section 1/25, Evidence Act, it is not enough to show that the exercises some or even many of the powers of a police officer conducting an investigation under the Code. Constitution of India, Art. 20 (3) "P erson accused of an offence" Person arrested under S. 6 of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act 1966 - Incriminating statements made by him during enquiry under S.8- Prosecution under S. 20 (3) not available."
9. In another case titled as " Salim Mohamed Babul Miniyar Vs. State of Maharashtra" 2001 CRL. L. J. 58 (BOMBAY) (Mrs.) Pratibha Upasani, J. in Cr. Revn. Appl. NO. 243 of 1994 it was held that : Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act (29 of 1966), Ss. 3(a), 8(1) - Unlawful possession of railway property - Accused voluntarily confessed that he had purchased stolen property of railway - Confessional statement recorded by RPF officer making enquiry under S. 8(1) - Is admissible in evidence as he is not a police officer under S. 162 Cr. P.C. Conviction based on said confessional statement - Not illegal.
10. Prosecution witnesses have proved the date, time and place of offence and have also established the identity of accused and that of case property. There are no such contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses so as to disbelieve their testimony. Moreover, accused has admitted the allegations of prosecution against him.
Contd..........
/6/ 11 In view of the aforesaid discussion I am of the view that prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly accused Ram Kishan S/o Shri Kishan is convicted for offence U/S 3 RP(UP) Act.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY 26.9.2007 (SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI IN THE COURT OF SH. SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : M.M. DELHI STATE VS. RAM KISHAN FIR/CC NO: 34/94 P. S. RPF/NDLS ORDER ON SENTENCE:
Present: APP for State.
Accused in J/C.
The accused has been convicted for offence punishable u/s 3 RP (UP) Act vide separate judgment of this court dated 26.9.2007.
Heard the accused on the point of sentence.
Accused submitted that he belonged to very poor family. He further submitted that he remained in J/C for about 2 months and 7 days. He further submitted that he is only earing member of his family and prayed for a lenient view.
Considering the nature of the offence and socio, economic condition of the convict, he is sentenced to 6 months RI with fine Rs. 5000/ , I/D 3 months SI U/s 3RP(UP) Act. Benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C is also awarded to accused. Case property be disposed off according to the court of law. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY 26.9.2007 (SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI IN THE COURT OF SH. SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : M.M. DELHI STATE VS. RAM KISHAN FIR/CC NO: 42/98 P. S. RPF/NDLS ORDER ON SENTENCE:
Present: APP for State.
Accused in J/C.
The accused has been convicted for offence punishable u/s 3 RP (UP) Act vide separate judgment of this court dated 26.9.2007.
Heard the accused on the point of sentence.
Accused submitted that he belonged to very poor family. He further submitted that he remained in J/C . He further submitted that he is only earing member of his family and prayed for a lenient view.
Considering the nature of the offence and socio, economic condition of the convict, he is sentenced to 6 months RI with fine Rs. 5000/ , I/D 3 months SI U/s 3RP(UP) Act. Benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C is also awarded to accused. Case property be disposed off according to the court of law. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY 26.9.2007 (SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI IN THE COURT OF SH. SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : M.M. DELHI STATE VS. RAJESH @ BIHARI FIR NO: 602/03 P. S. NDLS JUDGEMENT U/S 355 Cr.P.C .:
a) Serial No. of the case : 129/04 b) Date of offence : 1.12.2003 c) Offence complained of : 379/511 IPC 147 I.R. Act. d) Name of complainant : Rajbir Singh e) Name of accused, his : Rajesh @ Bihari S/o Ramanand parentage & residence R/o Jhuggi No. 121, Railway Colony, Thamsan Road, New Delhi. f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty. g) Final order : Convicted h) Date of institution of case : 22.3.2004 i) Date on which case reserved : 27.9.2007 for judgment j) Date of judgment : 27.9.2007 (after lunch) BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION: 1 Briefly stating, as per case of prosecution, the accused has been
facing trial on the allegation that on 1.12.2003 at about 7.35 pm at General Boggy of Vaishali Express stationed at PF No. 11, within the jurisdiction of P.S. NDLS he attempted to commit theft of purse of complainant Sh. Rajbir Singh and dishonestly attempted to remove the same without the consent of Contd..........
/2/ the complainant as well as he was found in the premises of railway without any ticket of other authority. Thus a case for offence punishable u/s 379/511 IPC read with section 147 of I.R. Act has been registered against the accused. The IO after completion of investigation has filed the chargesheet before the court.
2 The accused was supplied with copies of chargesheet and on the basis of material on record, he was charged for offence punishable u/s 379/511 IPC read with section 147 of I.R. Act vide order of this court dated . When the charge was readover and explained to accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3 To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined as many as 2 witnesses in support of its case.
4 The first witness examined by prosecution was PW1 HC Mahavir Singh, who has deposed about registration of FIR in the present case and has proved the copy of FIR Ex. PW1 /A. 5 PW2 Ct. Satish Kujmar has deposed that on 1.12.2003 he alongwith HC Devender Singh were were on patrolling duty at PF No. 10/11, NDLS. At PF No. 11 Vaishal Express was stationed. In the mean time they heard a noise of Chor Chor in general Boggy, they moved to said compartment and saw that one person namely Raghubir Singh caught hold a Contd..........
/3/ person and told then that this man tried to remove his purse. He furtrher deposed that HC Mahender Singh recorded the statement of complainant and prepared rukka and he got the FIR registered from Police Station. He has further proved the arrest and personal search of of accused vide Ex. PW2/A and B and deposed that IO has recorded his statement to this effect. PW1 has fully supported the case of the prosecution and have correctly identified the accused as the person who on the date, time and place of the incident has attempted to commit theft of purse of aforesaid complainant without his consent.
6 In his statement recorded on 27.9.2007 the accused has pleaded guilty and admitted the offence in question and has also filed an application Ex. C1 to this effect.
7 I have heard the submission of Ld. APP and of accused in person and have carefully gone through the record. 8 In view of the above discussion as well as the statement of accused , wherein accused has admitted the offence in question for which he has been charged by filing application pleading guilty, I have come to the conclusion that it was only accused who on the date , time and place mentioned above have committed offence in question and thus a case for offence punishable u/s 379/511 IPC is stand proved against the accused.
Contd..........
/4/
9. In the case titled as " State of Maharashtra V/s. Dhruwa Wollen Mills Pvt. Ltd." 1991 Crl J 3142 (Bom.) it is held that: " If the substance of accusation is properly explained to the accused and the accused understands fully the implication of the charge and pleads guilty, the Magistrate can record such plea and convict the accused on accepting such plea. But if the accused is not present before the Magistrate and does not plead guilty, the plea of guilty by other accused on his behalf, is illegal."
10 Hence in view of above discussion coupled with voluntary plea of guilty by accused in his statement as well as by filing application to the said effect, I have come to the conclusion that the accused is found guilty for the offence in question.. Accordingly the said accused is hereby convicted for offence punishable u/s 379/511 IPC.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY 27.09.2007 (SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI IN THE COURT OF SH. SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : M.M. DELHI STATE VS. RAJESH @ BIHARI FIR NO: 602/03 P. S. NDLS ORDER ON SENTENCE Present: APP for State.
Accused The accused has been convicted for offence punishable u/s 379/511 IPC vide separate judgment of this court dated 27.9.2007.
Heard on the point of sentence.
The accused/convict submits that he belongs to a very poor family. He further submits that he remained in J/C in this case for about 4 months and one day. He further submits that he is the only earning member of his family and prayed for a lenient view.
Considering the nature of the offence and socio, economic condition of the accused, accused is sentenced to 4 Months RI with fine Rs. 1000/ I/D 3 days SI in this case U/s 379/511 IPC. Benefit of Section 428 Cr. P.C. is awarded to the accused. Case property be disposed off in accordance with law.
File be consigned to Record Room. Copy of judgment as well as of this order be given to the accused free of cost.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY 27.09.2007 (SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI