Delhi District Court
State vs Gurdeepak Singh on 30 January, 2016
State v/s Gurdeepak Singh
FIR No.68/13
PS Domestic Airport
IN THE COURT OF Dr. PANKAJ SHARMA,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE01, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
FIR No. 68/13
PS: Domestic Airport
U/S :25 Arms Act
State V/S Gurdeepak Singh
C No. 63/02
U.ID No 02405R0235452014
Date of Institution: 10.10.2014
Name of the Complainant Sh. Vineet Singh
Assistant Managar Security
Indigo Airlines, T1,
IGI Airport, New Delhi.
Name and address of accused Gurdeepak Singh
s/o Sh. Harkeerat Singh
r/o H. No. 169/2,
New Rajinder Nagar,
Jalandhar, Punjab.
Charge framed against accused u/s 25 Arms Act
Plea of accused persons Pleaded not guilty
Final Order Acquitted
Date for announcing the orders 30.01.2016
State Vs. Gurdeepak Singh
FIR No. 68/13
PS Domestic Airport
Case No. 63/02 Page no. 1 of 11
State v/s Gurdeepak Singh
FIR No.68/13
PS Domestic Airport
JUDGMENT
The brief facts and pre trial procedure
1. Charge u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act was framed against the accused that "on 06.10.2013 at about 8.25PM at Level 4(DIAL) Terminal 1D, Domestic Airport, within the jurisdiction of PS Domestic Airport, one live cartridge of 50AE was found from the baggage of accused which was put into screening during the checking of baggage without any licence in contravention of Section 3 of Arms Act, 1959 and therefore he was charged for the above mentioned offence to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial".
Trial
2. To prove the charges, prosecution has cited ten witnesses in the list of prosecution witnesses and examined eight witnesses and thereafter Prosecution Evidence was closed on 30.01.2016.
3. PW1 HC Jawahar Lal deposed that he was the Duty Officer at the relevant time who proved the FIR no. 68/13 as Ex. PW1/A and he also made his endorsement Ex. PW1/B on the rukka.
4. PW2 Vineet D Singh deposed that on 06.10.2013, he was informed by DIAL securities that a suspicious object is deducted in the baggage of Gurdeepak Singh. He reached to the boarding gate and stopped passenger Gurdeepak Singh who was having check in baggage which was checked under his instruction by the DIAL security and a bullet State Vs. Gurdeepak Singh FIR No. 68/13 PS Domestic Airport Case No. 63/02 Page no. 2 of 11 State v/s Gurdeepak Singh FIR No.68/13 PS Domestic Airport was recovered from the baggage. He made a complaint to police station regarding recovery of a bullet from the baggage of passenger Gurdeepak Singh, the bullet was also seized and pulanda was prepared. Accused Gurdeepak Singh was taken to police station where he was arrested by police Vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/A, Accused was personally searched by the IO and his personal search memo was prepared vide Ex. PW2/B. Seizur memo of the bullet was prepared by the IO. Sketch of the bullet was also prepared by the IO. He made complaint to the concerned SHO. FIR was registered. Thereafter, he left the PS after all the proceedings were done by the police. His statement was also recorded by the police in the police station.
In cross examination he affirmed that in his complaint made to concerned SHO Ex. PW1/B he did not mention the fact that the pulanda of the cartridge was prepared by him after it was recovered from the baggage of the passenger. He further affirmed that Mr. Davender first noticed the bullet shaped article inside the baggage of the passenger while screening. He denied the suggestion that police never seized the bag from where alleged bullet was recovered from the accused. He affirmed that he has not mentioned presence of any distinct mark on the bullet in his complaint made to police. He further affirmed that bullet is not produced in court which was seized from the passenger Gurdeepak Singh. He denied the suggestion that bag of the accused was not seized by the police as no bullet was recovered from his bag. He denied the suggestion that the memos which bear his State Vs. Gurdeepak Singh FIR No. 68/13 PS Domestic Airport Case No. 63/02 Page no. 3 of 11 State v/s Gurdeepak Singh FIR No.68/13 PS Domestic Airport signatures were not prepared in his presence. He denied the suggestion that his signatures were later on obtained by the IO on the memos after calling in the police station. He denied the suggestion that no recovery of bullet was effected from the baggage of the accused on the given date and time. He denied the suggestion that a bullet was planted upon the accused by the police after he left the police station. He denied the suggestion that his statement was not recorded by the IO in PS.
5. PW3 Constable Baljeet deposed that on 04.10.2013, he was on duty at VIP Xray machine as Load Officer to check the baggages of passengers. He again said that the date was 06.10.2013 in the evening time however, he does not remember the exact time now, one lady official from Indigo Airlines came to him with one pax and told him that pax is to be taken to level 4. He along with that Indigo officials and pax went to level 4 where the baggage of pax was got identified from him and thereafter on checking one bullet was found from the baggage. Thereafter, assistant manager from Indigo Airlines came there and informed pax that he cannot be boarded on the flight and he was to hand over to the police. He along with pax and assistant manager went to PS and police carried out further proceedings. He correctly identified the accused in the Court.
6. PW4 HC Ved Prakash brought on record the register no. 19 and deposed that as per the entry no. 275, SI Narpal Singh on 06.10.2013 State Vs. Gurdeepak Singh FIR No. 68/13 PS Domestic Airport Case No. 63/02 Page no. 4 of 11 State v/s Gurdeepak Singh FIR No.68/13 PS Domestic Airport had deposited in the malkhana one sealed pulanda with the seal of DOM. AIRPORT 2 containing one live cartridge. He brought the sealed pulanda having seals of FSL. Copy of the entry is Ex.PW4/A. In cross examination he affirmed that case property was not deposited in his presence. He affirmed that entry Ex.PW4/A is not in his handwriting and also not made in his presence. He further affirmed that the pulanda was not sealed in his presence. He denied the suggestion that the cartridge found inside the pulanda which is opened in the Court is not related to the present case.
7. PW5 Constable Praveen deposed that on 21.10.2013 he took the exhibit i.e. one sealed parcel and FSL form to FSL, Rohini from MHCM and deposited the same there. He took the receiving and deposited the same with MHCM on same day. He deposed that the exhibit remained in his custody nobody had tampered with the same. His statement was recorded by the IO.
In cross examination, he denied the suggestion that number of any road certificate or its issuance date is not mentioned in his statement because he never took the exhibits of this case to the FSL Lab on 21.10.2013 after taking out from the malkhana of PS. He denied the suggestion that he never took the exhibits i.e. sealed parcel and FSL form to FSL Rohini.
8. PW6 Amit Kumar deposed that on 06.10.2013 he was on State Vs. Gurdeepak Singh FIR No. 68/13 PS Domestic Airport Case No. 63/02 Page no. 5 of 11 State v/s Gurdeepak Singh FIR No.68/13 PS Domestic Airport screening duty at level 3 on Xray machine at Domestic Airport. He received information from level 2 that there was doubt of bullet in the luggage of one pax, when the baggage came at level 3 he screened the same in xray machine and he ensured that there was a bullet inside the baggage through screening. He informed the Indigo Airlines official regarding the said fact and passed the information regarding the details of pax Gurdeepak Singh. Thereafter, Indigo official came at the level 4 along with the pax Gurdeepak Singh for physical check of his baggage. On physical check of the baggage one bullet was found. Gurdeepak Singh could not produce any document regarding the bullet so the baggage along with bullet and pax were handed over to Airline Official for further action as per BCAS Circular No. 31/2005.
In cross examination, he denied the suggestion that he is intentinally concealing the fact of recording of his statement by police in this case. He further denied the suggestion that he is unable to disclose the name of the persons of CISF and ariline staff because he never conducted physical checking of the said check in bag at level 4 on 06.10.2013. He denied the suggestion that on 06.10.2013 he was not on duty at level 3 of the airport. He further denied the suggestion that he never went to PS on 06.10.2013. He denied the suggestion that no proceedings were carried out in his presence in this case. He denied the suggestion that no bullet was recovered from the baggage of the accused in his presence on 06.10.2013.
State Vs. Gurdeepak Singh FIR No. 68/13 PS Domestic Airport Case No. 63/02 Page no. 6 of 11 State v/s Gurdeepak Singh FIR No.68/13 PS Domestic Airport
9. PW7 M.I. Haider(DCP, EOW) deposed that he was holding a charge of DCP Airport on 06.10.2013. On that day, passenger Deepak was booked for offence u/s 25 Arms Act vide FIR No. 68/13 for possessing a live cartridge which was detected during screening. After preparation of case, a report was put before him regarding the ammunition and he after due application of mind on the facts and documents produced before him, accorded sanction u/s 39 Arms Act for his prosecution u/s 25 Arms Act which is Ex.PW7/1.
In cross examination he denied the suggestion that initial complaint Ex.PW1/B was never produced before him along with other papers of this case before giving sanction for the prosecution. He further denied the suggestion that without going through the initial complaint and without applying his mind he accorded sanction u/s 39 of Arms Act for prosecution of the accused. He further denied the suggestion that original complaint has been manipulated as some additions are made regarding the particulars of the identification mark of the bullet that is why the same is not mentioned in his report Ex.PW7/1. He further denied the suggestion that no document relating to this case were ever produced before him. He further denied the suggestion that he accorded sanction without going through the all relevant documents of this case.
10. PW8 Inspector Narpal Singh deposed that on 06.10.2013, I was State Vs. Gurdeepak Singh FIR No. 68/13 PS Domestic Airport Case No. 63/02 Page no. 7 of 11 State v/s Gurdeepak Singh FIR No.68/13 PS Domestic Airport posted at PS Domestic Airport as SI. On that day, complainant Vineet Singh(Manager Indigo Airlines) came at the PS and gave a written complaint regarding recovery of one live cartridge from accused Gurdeepak Singh and also produced the accused in PS. I prepared the tehrir on the basis of complaint which is Ex.PW8/A which bears my signature at point A and same was handed over to DO for registration of FIR. I prepared the sketch of live cartridge which was recovered from the possession of accused, which is already Ex.PW2/D, which bears my signature at point B. The live cartridge was seized by me vide seizure memo already Ex.PW2/C which bears my signature at point B. Original tehrir and copy of FIR were handed over to me. Accused Gurdeepak Singh was arrested by me vide arrest memo already Ex.PW2/A which bears my signature at point B. His personal search was conducted vide memo already Ex.PW2/B which bears my signature at point B. Accused was interrogated by me and his disclosure statement was recorded which is Ex.PW8/B which bears my signature at point A. (objected by Ld. Defence Counsel regarding the admission of the document Ex.PW8/B). During my investigation I recorded the statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and sent the cartridge to FSL for ballistic examination. Thereafter, I was got transfered from the PS and case file was handed over to MHR(R). Accused present in the Court today(correctly identified by the witness). The case property is already Ex.P1.
In cross examination he affirmed that Mr. Devender who as State Vs. Gurdeepak Singh FIR No. 68/13 PS Domestic Airport Case No. 63/02 Page no. 8 of 11 State v/s Gurdeepak Singh FIR No.68/13 PS Domestic Airport per the complaint Ex.PW1/B was on duty at LevelII on 06.10.2013 at Domestic Airport had not got joined the investigation by him therefore his statement was not recorded. He further affirmed that he had not prepared the site plans of the level II, levelIII & levelIV. He affirmed that no independent witness had joined the investigation. He further affirmed that the Airport premises where the recovery was effected is under CCTV Surveillance but CCTV footage was not obtained by him. He denied the suggestion that he planted the case property upon the accused as accused has refused to fulfill his illegal demand through the relative of accused namely Harpreet Singh. He denied the suggestion that he had tempered in the complaint Ex.PW1/B and mentioned words "of 50AE" just to falsely implicate and plant the recovery on accused. He denied the suggestion that due to manipulation in complaint Ex.PW1/B same was not put up before DCP concerned for getting sanction u/s 39 Arms Act. He further denied the suggestion that in order to conceal the real facts of the presence of a toy bullet shaped key ring in the baggage of accused he never visited the given place of recovery of Airport. He further denied the suggestion that due to above said reasons he did not join any independent witness. He further denied the suggestion that due to above said reasons he did not join Mr .Devender who as per the complaint firstly witnessed the bullet shaped article in the baggage of the accused on the given date while when he was on duty at levelII. He further denied the suggestion that when the accused refused to fulfill his above said demand then after concocting State Vs. Gurdeepak Singh FIR No. 68/13 PS Domestic Airport Case No. 63/02 Page no. 9 of 11 State v/s Gurdeepak Singh FIR No.68/13 PS Domestic Airport a false story with the help of other PWs he got this false case registered against the accused. He further denied the suggestion that no recovery of live cartridge was effected from the accused. He further denied the suggestion that through MHCM of this case he got produced a planted cartridge Ex.P1 in the evidence of this case.
Conclusion
11. After careful scrutiny of the evidence on record it has emerged that accused was found with one live cartridge of 50AE from his baggage. Evidence also suggests that same live cartridge was being used by the accused as key ring while the same was detected at the airport. Although the the cartridge appears to be in conscious possession of the accused but still same was not intended to be used for any illegal purpose. Further, no where in the examination of witnesses it has come that accused intended to use that cartridge for any illegal purpose. Also no arm has been recovered from him of which the cartridge can be used. A person cannot use a cartridge without any arm. No recovery of any arm or revolver has been effected from the accused.
12. The Court after careful scrutiny of the evidence do not see any evidence showing culpability of accused and accordingly statement of accused is dispensed with. Accordingly, all it can be said that accused never intended to use the cartridge for any illegal purpose but kept the same for using it as a key ring. Accordingly the accused is acquitted for State Vs. Gurdeepak Singh FIR No. 68/13 PS Domestic Airport Case No. 63/02 Page no. 10 of 11 State v/s Gurdeepak Singh FIR No.68/13 PS Domestic Airport the offence charged for. He is directed to furnish bail bond in terms of Section 437A of Cr.P.C.
Announced in the Open Court (Dr. PANKAJ SHARMA)
on this 30th day of January 2016 MM01: Dwarka : Delhi
State Vs. Gurdeepak Singh
FIR No. 68/13
PS Domestic Airport
Case No. 63/02 Page no. 11 of 11