Delhi District Court
State vs Deepak Yadav on 17 January, 2026
State Vs. Deepak Yadav
FIR No.: 265/2023
PS: Anand Vihar
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANISH JAIN
ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Cr. No. 11764/2024
State Vs. Deepak Yadav
FIR No.: 265/2023
PS: M.S. Park
u/s 188 IPC and 5/15 Environment Act
CNR No. DLSH020120362024
A Case Identification 11764/2024
Number
B Name of the Ct. Ankit
Complainant
C Name of the accused Deepak Yadav
& his parentage and S/o Vijay Kumar Yadav
address
D Date of commission 06.08.2023
of the offences
E Date of Institution of 13.08.2024
the case
F Offences charged 188 IPC and 5/15 Environment
Protection Act
G Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
H Date of 17.01.2026
Pronouncement of
judgment
I Final Order Acquitted
Digitally
signed by
MANISH
MANISH JAIN
JAIN Date:
page No. 1 of 7 2026.01.19
13:59:27
+0530
(Manish Jain)
ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi
State Vs. Deepak Yadav
FIR No.: 265/2023
PS: Anand Vihar
J State represented by Mr. Sukhjeet Singh, Ld. APP for the
State.
JUDGMENT
1. Present accused was produced before the court to stand trial for commission of offences punishable u/s 188 IPC and 5/15 Environment Protection Act.
2. In brief, it is the case of the prosecution that on 06.08.2023 at about 7:15 PM, the accused Deepak Yadav was found flying and possessing prohibited Chinese kite string (Manjha) coated with metallic powder (Metallic Powder Coating) near CGHS Dispensary, MS Park, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Mansarovar Park. The accused was apprehended by Ct. Ankit Kumar No. 2170/SHD, who was on beat duty. On checking, the accused was found in possession of one cone of metallic powder coating Chinese manjha and another cone of desi manjha along with 12 loose flying strings. The said manjha was prohibited under the Government of NCT of Delhi notification due to its hazardous nature causing danger to human life and birds. The information was conveyed to the police station, pursuant to which DO ASI Hansraj registered FIR No. 265/2023 under Section 188 IPC and Sections 5/15 of the Environment (Protection) Act. The investigation was conducted by ASI Devisharan Singh, who prepared the site plan, seized the case property, arrested the accused, Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH JAIN JAIN Date:
2026.01.19 13:59:44 +0530 page No. 2 of 7 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Deepak Yadav FIR No.: 265/2023 PS: Anand Vihar and completed other necessary formalities. The accused admitted possession of the prohibited manjha but stated that the same had been purchased earlier from a temporary shop which was no longer traceable. The accused was released on bail as the offence was bailable. Necessary permissions under Section 195 CrPC were obtained from the competent authority. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused for offences punishable under Section 188 IPC and Sections 5/15 of the Environment Protection Act.
3. Upon filing of the charge-sheet, Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 13.08.2024 took the cognizance of the offences against accused. Upon appearance of accused, copy of the chargesheet was supplied to him. Thereafter, matter was listed for arguments on the point of charge.
4. Thereafter, arguments on charge were heard and charge under Section 188 IPC and Sections 5/15 of the Environment Protection Act was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Thereafter, prosecution was asked to lead its evidence. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined 02 witnesses.
Digitally
signed by
MANISH
MANISH JAIN
JAIN Date:
2026.01.19
13:59:50
+0530
page No. 3 of 7
(Manish Jain)
ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi
State Vs. Deepak Yadav
FIR No.: 265/2023
PS: Anand Vihar
6. PW-1 Ct. Ankit deposed that on 06.08.2023 at about 7:15 PM, PW-1 Ct. Ankit Kumar while on patrol duty at DDA Chowk, MS Park, found accused Deepak Yadav in possession of two cones of kite string, one of which was metallic power-coated Chinese manjha, prohibited under government notification. The accused was apprehended and the information was given to the police station. IO ASI Devi Sharan arrived at the spot and he recorded his statement which is Ex.PW1/A. ASI Dev Sharan prepared rukka and handed over the same to Ct. Ankit and FIR was got registered. The case property was seized and sealed vide memo Ex.PW1/B and the accused was arrested vide memo Ex.PW1/C. His personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW1/D and his disclosure statement was recorded which is Ex.PW1/E. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Section 188 IPC and Sections 5/15 of the Environment Protection Act. This witness was cross-examined by ld. defence counsel.
7. PW-2 ASI Devi Sharan deposed that on 06.08.2023, upon receiving information, he reached DDA Chowk, MS Park, where PW-1 Ct. Ankit produced the accused along with 12 kites and two cones of manjha. He seized the case property, sealed it with the seal of DS, recorded statement of PW-1, prepared rukka, got the FIR registered, arrested the accused, conducted his personal search, recorded disclosure statement, prepared the site plan and deposited the case property in the malkhana. He correctly identified the accused and Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.01.19 13:59:57 +0530 page No. 4 of 7 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Deepak Yadav FIR No.: 265/2023 PS: Anand Vihar the case property in court.
8. Accused has made statement u/s 294 Cr.P.C. and admitted the FIR of the present case, Certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act and DD No. 64A dated 06.08.2023 as Ex.A1 colly, order dated 17.07.2023 as Ex.A2 and order dated 31.07.2023 as Ex.A3. Accordingly, prosecution witnesses to that extent were dropped from the list of witnesses.
9. Thereafter, statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C wherein accused denied all the allegations and stated that he has been falsely implicated. He stated that nothing was recovered from him and police arrested him from his house. Accused chose to lead evidence in defence. However, later on, since he was not inclined to lead DE, DE was closed vide order dated 29.11.2025.
10. I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for State and Ld. counsel for accused and perused the file carefully.
11. It is settled proposition of criminal law that burden lies upon prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to prove its case, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefit Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.01.19 14:00:03 page No. 5 of 7 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Deepak Yadav FIR No.: 265/2023 PS: Anand Vihar from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused.
12. It is the case of the prosecution that accused Deepak Yadav was found in the possession of chinese manja, thereby violating the orders of Assistant Commissioner of Police dated 17.07.2023 and thereby committing the offence punishable u/s 188 IPC r/w Section 5/15 Environment Protection Act, 1986.
13. Prosecution in order to prove its case has examined PW-1 Ct. Ankit and PW2 ASI Devi Ram who during the course of their deposition has categorically deposed that the accused was found in the possession of chinese manjha. During the cross-examination of both the witnesses, it is admitted by them that no forensic examination was conducted qua the recovered manjha and it was only on the basis of their opinion that they inferred that the said manjha is the chinese manjha which is violative of the notification issued by the ACP. Further, no public witness have been joined by the IO during the process of recovery thereby creating a doubt over the said recovery.
14. It is a settled proposition of law that when recovery is allegedly effected from a public place and independent public persons are available, sincere efforts must be made by the Investigating Officer to associate them in the investigation. In the present case, admittedly no independent public witness was joined at the time of alleged recovery Digitally signed MANISH by MANISH JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.01.19 14:00:09 +0530 page No. 6 of 7 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Deepak Yadav FIR No.: 265/2023 PS: Anand Vihar and no plausible explanation has been forthcoming for such non- joining. However, when independent public persons or passers-by are admittedly available at the spot, the Investigating Officer is expected to make sincere efforts to associate them in the investigation. In the present case, PW1 have categorically stated that several passers-by/public persons were present at the spot at the relevant time. Despite their availability, no independent public witness was joined at the time of apprehension of the accused and recovery of the alleged case property. Even the names, addresses or particulars of the passers- by who allegedly refused to join the investigation have not been recorded, nor any notice was served upon them.
15. In these circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt is given to the accused, who is entitled for acquittal for the offences u/s 188 IPC r/w Section 5/15 Environment Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, accused is hereby acquitted for the offences 188 IPC r/w Section 5/15 Environment Protection Act, 1986.
Digitally
signed by
MANISH
Announced in the open Court MANISH
JAIN
JAIN
Date:
on 17th January, 2026 2026.01.19
14:00:15
+0530
(Manish Jain)
ACJM:Shahdara
Karkardooma Courts:Delhi
page No. 7 of 7
(Manish Jain)
ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi