Delhi District Court
State vs Rajesh Jain on 21 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF RENU CHAUDHARY
ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (Special Acts)
CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
DLCT020367632022
FIR No.391/2015
State Vs. Rajesh Jain
PS: Ashok Vihar
(a) CT No. 1531/2022
(b) Date of Institution 30.01.2018
(c) Name of Complainant & Sh. Rahul Aggarwal,
its registered office Sub. Division Magistrate, Saraswati
Vihar, Delhi
(d) Accused, parentage and Rajesh Jain s/o Sh. Santosh Kumar
address R/o H. No.950/63, Lekhu Nagar, Tri
Nagar, Delhi
(e) Offence complained of 188/448 Indian Penal Code and Section
33A of the water (Prevention &
Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and
Section 16 of Environment Protection
Act, 1986.
(f) Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
(g) Final Order Conviction under Section 188 IPC
Acquittal u/s 448 IPC, Section 33A of
the water (Prevention & Control of
Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 16 of
Environment Protection Act, 1986.
(h) Date when judgment was 08.01.2026
reserved
(i) Date of judgment 21.02.2026
FIR No.391/2015 State Vs. Rajesh Jain Page No.1/11
JUDGMENT
1. Present charge-sheet has been forwarded by the SHO, PS Ashok Vihar against the accused to face trial for the commission of offence u/s 188/448 IPC, Section 33A of the water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 16 of Environment Protection Act, 1986.
2. In nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that the complainant who was SDM, Saraswati Vihar, Delhi sealed the premises of accused Mr. Rajesh Jain i.e. M/s Bittoo, B-68/4, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi-110052 vide sealing no. SDM/SV/DPCC/2015/14001 dated 11.06.2015 in compliance of DPCC order F. No.DPCC/CMC-III/2015/1650 dated 30.05.2015. On 20.07.2015, during a sudden inspection by complainant, it was found that the seal of H. No. B-68/4, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi was broken and a factory was found running at the said premises. Consequently a written complaint was given to the SHO, PS Ashok Vihar after which the FIR was lodged and for violation of directions of SDM, Saraswati Vihar issued under Section 33 A of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution), Act, 1974 and Section 5 of Environment Protection Act, 1986, the present charge-sheet was filed for the offence u/s u/s 188/448 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC), Section 33A of the water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 16 of Environment Protection Act, 1986 against the accused.
3. Cognizance was taken by the Ld. Predecessor v.o.d. 30.01.2018 & after taking cognizance, accused was summoned. On appearance of accused, copy of the charge-sheet alongwith documents were supplied to him in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. & the case was listed for arguments on charge.
FIR No.391/2015 State Vs. Rajesh Jain Page No.2/114. After hearing the parties, a charge was framed against the accused for the commission of offence under Section 188/448 IPC, Section 41 (C) of the water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 16 of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 v.o.d 05.02.2020 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Thereafter, matter was listed for Prosecution's evidence. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as 05 witnesses which are as under:-
PW-1 ASI Harmesh Singh, police witness PW-2 HC Dharamender Kumar, police witness PW-3 Sh. Rahul Aggarwal, the then SDM/complainant.
PW-4 Insp. Umesh Rana, 2nd Investigating officers PW-5 SI Praveen Kumar, 1st Investigating officer .
6. It is noteworthy that vide separately recorded statement u/s 294 Cr.P.C, the accused voluntarily admitted the registration of the FIR as Ex.A-1 and certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence act as Ex.A-2. Hence, the examination of the concerned witnesses was dispensed with v.o.d. 21.03.2024.
7. ASI Harmesh Singh entered the witness box as PW-1 and deposed that on 20.07.2025 at about 05:10 p.m, SDM alongwith his staff reached at the police post, Wazirpur Industrial Area and left for sealing at A, B & C blocks of Ashok Vihar alongwith Ct. Dharmender. As per PW-1, he recorded DD No.27PP vide Ex.PW1/A. PW-1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.FIR No.391/2015 State Vs. Rajesh Jain Page No.3/11
8. HC Dharmender Kumar appeared in the witness box as PW-2 and testified that on 20.07.2015, he alongwith Sh. Rahul Aggarwal, SDM Saraswati Vihar went B Block, Wazirpur Industrial Area where the SDM put his seal at B-
68/4, Wazirpur Industrial Area. Witness stated that IO had recorded his statement. PW-2 was cross-examined on behalf of accused.
9. Sh. Rahul Aggarwal, the then SDM/complainant entered into witness box as PW-3 and deposed that on 20.07.2015, the complainant was on Inspection in Wazirpur area and received a call from one of his staff members to reach at H. No. B-68/4, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi. As per PW-3, he was also informed that said premises was already sealed on 30.05.2015 but the seal is now broken and the factory was running therein. Witness further deposed that he went to the said house alongwith his staff and noticed that the seal which was put on the lock of the door of the said house was already broken. PW-3 further deposed that the said premises was sealed by in compliance of the order of DPCC vide order no.F. No.DPCC/CMC-III/2015/1650 dated 30.05.2015 vide sealing no. SDM/SV/DPCC/2015/14001 dated 11.06.2015. As per PW-3, since the seal which was put in compliance of DPCC order with respect to violation of provisions of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act and Environment Act was found broken, hence he made a complaint to the concerned SHO in this regard vide complaint Ex.PW3/A. Witness was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
10. Insp. Umesh Rana (Investigating officer) entered into the witness box as PW-4 and deposed that on 20.07.2015, the investigation was marked to him by the then SHO PS-Ashok Vihar. As per PW-4, he perused the complaint (Ex.PW3/A) and put his endorsement vide Ex.PW-4/A. Witness further deposed FIR No.391/2015 State Vs. Rajesh Jain Page No.4/11 that the complainant was Sh. Rahul Aggarwal, the then SDM, Saraswati Vihar and PW-4 got the present FIR registered on the said complaint against M/s Bittoo at property no. B-68/4, Wazirpur Industrial Area Delhi whose proprietor is Rajesh Jain. PW-4 further deposed that he served notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C to the complainant to provide documents i.e relevant order, photographs, list of staff of raiding party etc vide Ex.PW4/B. As per PW-4, he also served a notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C to accused Rajesh Jain to provide relevant documents vide Ex.PW-4/C. PW-4 further deposed that the accused was served a notice u/s 41A Cr.P.C vide Ex.PW-4/D. Thereafter, PW-4 was transferred and deposited the case file with MHC(R). Witness correctly identified the accused before the Court. PW-4 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
11. SI Praveen Kumar, (Investigating officer) entered into witness box as PW-5 and testified that in 2016, the investigation of case bearing FIR No. 391/15 was marked to him. As per PW-5, during investigation of this case, he prepared two notices u/s 91 Cr.P.C. on different dates (Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B) and served upon the SDM, Saraswati Vihar. PW-5 further deposed that he made efforts to obtain reply to those notices but did not receive during his tenure. Thereafter, he was transferred from PS Ashok Vihar and handed over the case file to the concerned officer. PW-5 was not cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused despite opportunity being given.
12. After examining all the prosecution witnesses, PE was closed v.o.d 13.11.2025 and the matter was listed for Statements of Accused.
13. Statement of Accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on 11.12.2025 FIR No.391/2015 State Vs. Rajesh Jain Page No.5/11 wherein accused denied all the incriminating evidence put to him and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case as the seal of the premises which was sealed on 30.05.2015 was never broken. Accused wished not to lead defence evidence, hence DE was closed and matter was listed for final arguments.
14. During the final arguments, it was argued by Ld. APP that PWs have proved the ingredients of the alleged offence against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He further stated that the witnesses have supported the complainant's case and hence, accused deserves to be convicted and sentenced, as per law.
15. On the other hand, it was vehemently argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that accused has been falsely implicated by the complainant and hence deserved acquittal.
16. I have heard the arguments addressed by Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused & have carefully perused the material available on record.
17. It is a settled legal principle that the prosecution has to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts & has to stand upon its own legs. The burden of proof in a criminal trial always rests upon the prosecution & the same never shifts upon the accused.
18. To discharge its burden of proof, the prosecution examined five material witnesses. The Court evaluates their testimonies as follows:
(a) PW-1 deposed regarding the initial movement of the SDM's team. He FIR No.391/2015 State Vs. Rajesh Jain Page No.6/11 stated on oath:
"On 20.07.2015 I was posted as Constable at PS Ashok Vihar, PP Wazirpur Industrial Area. On that day, my duty was from 4:00p.m. to 8:00 p.m. as DD writer. On that day, at about 5:10 p.m. SDM along with staff came to police post, Wazirpur Industrial Area and left for sealing at A,B,C blocks of Ashok Vihar. Ct. Dharmender also accompanied him. I recorded DD no. 27PP... The said DD is now Ex. PW1/A".
During his cross-examination, he confirmed that 04-05 persons accompanied the SDM and that the DD entry was in his handwriting.
(b) PW-2 corroborated the presence of the SDM at the site who deposed that on 20.07.2015, he alongwith SDM, Saraswati Vihar, Sh. Rahul Aggarwal went to B Block, Wazirpur Industrial Area where the SDM had sealed the premises i.e. B-68/4, Wazirpur Industrial Area.
(c) PW-3 Sh. Rahul Aggarwal (Complainant/SDM) is the star witness for the prosecution. His testimony forms the bedrock of the allegations. He deposed that on 20.07.2015, he was posted as SDM, Saraswati Vihar, Delhi and while on inspection in Wazirpur area, he reached at H. No. B-68/4 where he found that the seal of the premises which was already sealed on 30.05.2015 was broken and the factory was found running therein. Thereafter, PW-3 made a complaint to the concerned SHO in this regard. However, his cross-examination yielded significant admissions fatal to certain charges. PW-3 had deposed that he did not click the photographs of broken seal on 20.07.2015 and when he went to the spot, he did not find any factory running therein. Witness had stated that as far as he can recollect, he noticed that the door was shut but the seal over the lock was broken but he did not remember whether the lock was intact or not. As per the witness, he did not ask neighbour of the premises to join the raid/inspection.
FIR No.391/2015 State Vs. Rajesh Jain Page No.7/11Interestingly, PW-4 had stated during his testimony that he had visited the site on the next day of FIR and at that time it was sealed but he did not take the photographs.
19. Based on the evidence adduced, the Court is required to determine the culpability of the accused on three distinct fronts which are discussed as follows:
Whether the prosecution has proved the charge under Section 188 IPC? Section 188 IPC penalizes disobedience to an order duly promulgated by a public servant. The essential ingredients are: (i) an order promulgated by a public servant; (ii) knowledge of the order by the accused; and (iii) disobedience causing or tending to cause obstruction, annoyance, or injury.
20. In the case in hand, the existence of the DPCC closure order and the SDM's sealing order is not in dispute. The accused's knowledge is absolute. The primary point of contention is whether the seal was, in fact, broken. The Ld. Defense Counsel heavily relied on the fact that the IO (PW-4) admitted, "I did not take the photographs", and the SDM (PW-3) admitted, "I have not clicked the photographs of broken seal on 20.07.2015". The defense argued that without photographic evidence or independent public witnesses, the charge fails.
21. This Court disagrees with the defense on this specific point. While photographic evidence would have been ideal, its absence does not automatically render the testimony of a high-ranking public official void. PW-3, the SDM, explicitly testified that "the said seal which was put on the lock of the door of the said house was broken (Tuti hui thi)". There is no evidence on record to suggest that the SDM harbored any personal enmity toward the accused.
FIR No.391/2015 State Vs. Rajesh Jain Page No.8/11Under Section 114, Illustration (e) of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court may presume that official acts have been regularly performed. The tampering with a government seal constitutes a direct disobedience of the public servant's order. The sworn testimony of PW-3 is deemed reliable and sufficient to establish the breaking of the seal, thereby bringing home the charge under Section 188 IPC.
22. As regards Section 448 IPC, to prove this, the prosecution must show that the accused actually entered the sealed premises. The evidence fails spectacularly here. PW-3 (SDM) categorically admitted during his cross- examination: "As far as I can recollect, I noticed that the door was shut but the seal over the lock was broken. I do not remember whether the lock was intact or not". Section 448 IPC provides punishment for house trespass. Criminal trespass requires the physical entry into or remaining upon property in the possession of another with the intent to commit an offense or intimidate/annoy the person in possession.
A broken seal over a lock does not equate to an opened lock or physical entry into the premises. Because the prosecution's own star witness confirmed the door was shut and could not even attest to the lock being compromised, the fundamental ingredient of "entry" into the property is entirely missing. Consequently, the charge of house trespass under Section 448 IPC falls flat.
23. The accused was also charged under Section 41(C) of the Water Act and Section 16/18 of the Environment Act for using the premises in violation of the pollution control orders. The initial complaint suggested that the "factory was running" at the premises in question. However, the ocular evidence of the complainant himself contradicted this hearsay. PW-3 admitted under oath: "It is correct that when I went to the spot, I did not find factory in running condition".
FIR No.391/2015 State Vs. Rajesh Jain Page No.9/11Furthermore, IO Insp. Umesh Rana (PW-4) visited the site the very next day and noted that at that time it was sealed. There is an absolute dearth of evidence, no electricity consumption records, no water discharge samples, no witness to operational machinery, and no photographs to suggest the industrial unit had resumed its polluting operations. In the face of PW-3's admission that the factory was not running, the environmental charges are completely unsubstantiated.
24. Criminal jurisprudence dictates that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of legal proof. Therefore, In light of the critical appreciation of evidence discussed above, this Court finds that the prosecution has successfully proved that the accused tampered with the government seal, thereby disobeying the order promulgated by a public servant. However, the prosecution has failed to bring on record an iota of evidence to prove house trespass or the resumption of polluting activities.
ORDER The accused, Rajesh Jain S/o Late Sh. S. K. Jain, is hereby CONVICTED for the offense punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused is hereby ACQUITTED of the charges framed under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 41(C) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and Sections 16/18 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Digitally signed by RENU Ordered accordingly. RENU CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
Announced in open court 2026.02.21
17:15:54 +0530
on 21st February, 2026
RENU CHAUDHARY
ACJM (Spl. Acts), CENTRAL
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
FIR No.391/2015 State Vs. Rajesh Jain Page No.10/11
This judgment consists of 11 pages and each and every page of this judgment is signed by me.
RENU CHAUDHARY ACJM (Spl. Acts), CENTRAL TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI 21.02.2026 FIR No.391/2015 State Vs. Rajesh Jain Page No.11/11