Delhi District Court
Jai Prakash Sharma vs The Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 19 November, 2016
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH PANDIT,
ASJ-01, NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,
NEW DELHI
CR No. 8534/16
Jai Prakash Sharma
S/o Late Budhi Prakash Sharma
R/o 10578/2, Bagichi Alauddin, Motia Khan,
New Delhi. ....Revisionist
Vs.
The Govt. Of NCT of Delhi .....Respondent
Date of receiving of Revision : 02.01.2015
Date of arguments : 19.11.2016
Date of judgment : 19.11.2016
ORDER
1 By this order I will dispose of revision petition filed by revisionist/complainant Jai Prakash Sharma.
2 The brief facts as emerged from this petition and from the trial court record are that on 31.07.1996 at about 4.30 p.m. FI Sh. Bal Mukand visited M/s Jai Prakash Dairy at 10578/2 Gali no. A, Bagichi Aludin, Motia Khan, New Delhi. He took 750 ml of "cows milk" from an open container from one person namely Sh.
Jai Prakash Sharma Vs. State 2 Jai Prakash Sharma (actually the brother of this Jai Prakash, i.e. Shree Prakash met the FI. This Shree Prakash represented himself as Jai Prakash Sharma). FI conducted sample proceedings at the spot. This Sh. Shree Prakash Sharma took part in the said sample proceedings and signed all the documents impersonating himself as "Jai Prakash Sharma" (signed in the name Jai Prakash Sharma in Hindi). The sample failed during analysis by PA.
3 Prosecution was launched vide complaint dated 18.03.1997.
4 Court summoned the accused with the name Jai Prakash Sharma. Now original/true Jai Prakash Sharma i.e. the present applicant/revisionist appeared as accused and attended the court proceedings including exercise of right u/sec.13 (2) PFA. He had not disclosed that he was not there at the time of sampling and also charge was framed. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5 When FI came for his testimony on 18.08.2002, he disclosed that the accused (present in the court) is not the person from whom the sample was taken. He further stated that it was the brother of revisionist/accused with the name of Sh. Shree Prakash who impersonated as Jai Prakash and taken part in the proceedings.
Jai Prakash Sharma Vs. State 3 6 Matter was sent for registration of FIR. An FIR bearing no. 224/03 PS Nabi Karim u/sec.419/420/468 IPC was got registered against accused Sh. Shree Prakash Sharma. This accused Sh. Shree Prakash Sharma preferred a criminal revision bearing no. 012/09 stating that he is undergoing trial before the PFA Court for impersonation and cheating. So, the trial in the FIR will be a double jeopardy. The same was allowed vide order dated 05.03.2011 whereby Ld. ASJ had held that the trial of PFA court and arising out of FIR no. 224/03 PS Nabi Karim stands clubbed.
7 Present revisionist Jai Prakash Sharma being the owner of the dairy had already been given notice under (u/sec.251 Cr.P.C) PFA Act on 24.02.1995. However, on account of his offence of impersonation while taking part in the proceedings of the court, charge u/sec.419/202 IPC was framed on 30.09.2014.
8 The revisionist had filed this revision petition challenging the order dated 30.09.2014 on the ground that the ingredients of Sec.419/202 IPC were not made out.
9 I have gone through the record of revision petition, trial court record and submissions forwarded by Ld. counsel for revisionist and Ld. APP for State.
10 It is argued by Ld. counsel for revisionist that there is no impersonation done by revisionist as per the notice dated Jai Prakash Sharma Vs. State 4 30.09.2014. It is stated that further no offence u/sec.202 IPC is made out against the accused.
11 In this case, the allegation of charge explained to the accused with respect to Sec.419 IPC are that, that accused had not informed the court that the sample was not lifted from him but from his brother and also moved application u/sec.13(2) PFA Act for getting the sample analyzed. In these circumstances, accused was charged for Sec.419 IPC.
12 As far as these facts/allegations are concerned, the same are not correct. In this case, the accused was summoned u/sec.204 Cr.P.C. with name as "Jai Prakash". This original Jai Prakash appeared and took part in the proceedings of the case. Nowhere in the documents given to him, there was the name of any other person. It was not the duty of the accused to tell the court about any other third person on the date of his appearance. Moreover, it is difficult to apprehend as how the court came to know that this applicant "Jai Prakash" is having knowledge that some sample is lifted from his brother. So, in these circumstances, I think the ingredients of impersonation as mentioned in Sec.416 of IPC are not made out.
13 As far as Sec.202 IPC is concerned, the charge dated 30.09.2014 is framed with allegation that he was having knowledge that some offence has been committed and Jai Prakash Sharma Vs. State 5 intentionally not informed the police regarding the commission of said offence. The said offence is stated to be the fact that when notice u/sec.251 in PFA complaint was framed against the revisionist on 24.02.1998, he had not informed that the sample was not lifted from him.
14 As far as the alleged offence is concerned, court failed to specify that by not informing the court that sample was not lifted from him, which offence took place. Moreover, from the perusal of the notice dated 24.02.1998, when he was asked as to whether he pleads guilty of the offence of which allegation of notice was explained to him, he replied "I plead not guilty". This answer itself includes that he had not committed the offence or no such offence took place. So, in these circumstances, it cannot be said that he had not stated about the fact that he had not committed the crime.
15 So, in these circumstances, offence u/sec.202 IPC is also not made out against the accused.
16 So, it is held that charge of offence u/sec.419/202 IPC, as framed by the court in charge dated 30.09.2014 is not made out against the revisionist.
17 With these observations, the revision petition is disposed off.
Jai Prakash Sharma Vs. State 6 18 TCR be sent back with copy of the order.
19 File of revision be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED In the open Court (RAKESH PANDIT) today i.e. 19.11.2016 ASJ-01/New Delhi District Patiala House Courts/New Delhi Jai Prakash Sharma Vs. State 7 CR No. 8534/16 Jai Prakash Sharma Vs. State 19.11.2016 At 2.00 p.m. Present: Sh. O. P. Sharma counsel with revisionist.
Sh. A. K. Mishra, Ld. SPP for State.
Matter clarified.
Put up for order today itself.
(Rakesh Pandit) ASJ-01/PHC/New Delhi District 19.11.2016 At 3.00 p.m. Present: Sh. O. P. Sharma counsel with revisionist.
Sh. A. K. Mishra, Ld. SPP for State.
Vide separate order announced and dictated in open court, the revision petition filed by revisionist is disposed off with observation that charge of the offence u/sec.419/202 IPC, as framed by the court in charge dated 30.09.2014 is not made out against the revisionist.
TCR be sent back with copy of order.
File of revision petition be consigned to Record Room.
(Rakesh Pandit) ASJ-01/PHC/New Delhi District 19.11.2016 Jai Prakash Sharma Vs. State