Delhi District Court
State vs Rajeev @ Dimpy on 26 March, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN: ASJ
( ELECTRICITY):NW DISTRICT:ROHINI: DELHI
FIR no. 512/11
Unique Case ID no. 02404R0064352012
Police station : Mangolpuri
U/S 420/411/384/468/471/34IPC & 138 Electricity Act
State V/s Rajeev @ Dimpy
1. Session Case no. : SC no. 21/12
2. Name of the accused : Rajeev @ Dimpy S/o Shri
and parentage Surenderpal R/o B4/124,
Sultanpuri, Delhi.
3. Date of commission of : 03/12/2011
offence
4. Arguments concluded : 11/03/2014
on
5. Date of Judgment : 26/03/2014
6. Final Order : Convicted
JUDGMENT
1) According to the prosecution case on 03/12/2011 at about 6.15pm three boys came to the house of complainant Pradeep Bharti at H. no. 672, Mangolpuri, Delhi and introduced themselves as NDPL employees and they told him that they have come for checking his meter and they broke open the seals of the meter and asked him to go outside and thereafter told him that FIR no. 512/11 State Vs Rajeev @ Dimpy Page no. 1/23 complainant has used remote for tampering the meter and a case of theft will be registered against him and in case he want to get rid off the case they have to pay Rs. 30,000/. One of them continued to threaten the complainant on telephone from mobile no. 9212908520 and also demanded the said amount from him.
2) On 05/12/2011 at about 10.15am one of the boys who told his name Rajiv asked the complainant to come with money in the NDPL office Industrial area Phase1, Mangolpuri and lateron asked him to come near Katran market, Petrol pump and thereafter in front of Kala Mandir cinema Hall. Complainant has come to NDPL office and met Shri Satish Yadav, HOG Enforcement. Shri Satish Yadav alongwith NDPL staff accompanied him to the place in front of Kalamandir cinema hall and he made a telephone call from his mobile no. 9971141479 to said boy Rajiv on mobile no. 9212908520 at about 3pm who came there to take money from him. Complainant made a signal to the NDPL staff and when he handed over Rs. 1000/ notes to Rajiv. Mr. Satish Yadav HOG Enforcement alongwith staff came there and Rajiv tried to run away. He was overpowered at about 2pm but his other two associates escaped. The police was informed and police came on the spot and accused was handed over to police. On the basis of complaint of Mr. Pradeep Bharti a FIR no. 512/11 State Vs Rajeev @ Dimpy Page no. 2/23 case was registered under Section 420/411/384/468/471/34IPC. Two currency notes of Rs.1000 domination given by the complainant Pradeep Bharti to accused Rajiv were recovered from his possession and seized and site plan was prepared by the IO. Accused was formally arrested. From the possession of the accused a forged Identity card of NDPL was recovered. Call details of the mobile number of the accused and complainant was collected during investigation. Efforts were made by the IO to arrest coaccused Bal Kishan Verma and Rinku but they could not be traced. After completion of investigation a chargesheet was filed for the offence u/s 420/411/384/468/471/34IPC and section 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
3) On 16/05/2012, after hearing Ld counsel for the accused charge for the offence u/s 420/411/384/468/471/34IPC and section 138(D) of the Electricity Act, 2003 was framed against accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4) In support of its case prosecution has examined in total 12 witnesses.
5) PW1 Pradeep Bharti is the complainant; PW2 W/ASI Krishna has recorded the FIR as Ex. PW2/A and has proved the certificate u/s 65B of the Evidence Act as Ex. PW2/C alongwith endorsement on ruqqa as Ex. PW2/B. FIR no. 512/11 State Vs Rajeev @ Dimpy Page no. 3/23
6) PW3 Satish Yadav was HOG Enforcement in whose presence accused was apprehended and money of Rs. 2000 has been recovered from his possession.
7) PW4 Surender Chaudhary has inspected the meter of the complainant and found no physical abnormality inside the meter and prepared the inspection report marked as markA.
8) PW5 R.K.Lakhanpal is HOG Security with TPDDL and has verified the Identity card no. NE6778 issued in the name of accused and on verification found that Identity card as Ex. PW5/C was fake.
9) PW6 R.K. Singh, Nodal officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd has proved the call details in five pages of mobile of complainant no. 9971141479 as Ex. PW6/A and photocopy of Customer Form as Ex. PW6/B and Voter ID card as Ex. PW6/C. Cell ID chart as Ex.PW6/D and Certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW6/E.
10) PW7 Mahender Kumar Bansal, Proprietor of M/s SSGEL Agency who was provided security to the NDPL and he has verified the Icard recovered from the possession of the accused and stated that the same was not issued by their company because Icard no. NE6778 was issued to one Mukesh S/o Shri Ranbir Singh on 29/11/2010 which expired on 11/07/2011 and FIR no. 512/11 State Vs Rajeev @ Dimpy Page no. 4/23 thereafter the said Icard was deposited in the office of NDPL.
11) PW8 Rajeev Ranjan, Nodal Officer from TATA Tele Services Ltd has provided CDR of mobile of accused no. 9212908520 as Ex. PW8/A. He has proved the certificate 65 (B) of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW8/B, Cell ID chart as Ex. PW8/C and Customer application form of Mobile no. 9212908520 as Ex. PW8/D and voter ID card of Surender Pal who has purchased the SIM card as Ex. PW8/E.
12) PW9 Retired SI Mahender Singh is the formal witness who collected the electricity meter inspection report marked as markA & B, prepared the chargesheet and filed the same in the court.
13) PW10 Umesh Sharma has accompanied Sh. Surender Chaudhary,AM on 09/12/2011 and inspected the electricity meter installed at H. no. H672, Mangolpuri, Delhi. He has also deposed that during inspection seals of the meter no. 40028022 installed in the said house found missing. He has proved the inspection report as Ex. PW10/A and action report dated 09/02/2011 as Ex. PW10/B.
14) PW11 Ct.Ashok has accompanied the IO SI Sukhiram at the time of recording of statement of complainant Pradeep Bharti and got the FIR registered and all the investigation has FIR no. 512/11 State Vs Rajeev @ Dimpy Page no. 5/23 been carried out by SI Sukhiram in his presence.
15) PW12 SI Sukhi Ram the IO of the case has deposed that he was on emergency duty and when he alongwith Ct. Ashok Kumar reached near Kala Mandir Cinema hall he found gathering of the people and one person namely Pradeep Bharti had caught hold of one person namely Rajiv @ Dimpy. He further deposed that Pradeep Bharti produced the said person stating that he had taken Rs. 2000 as bribe from him. IO has narrated the entire story of the complaint which need not to be reproduced. He further deposed that recovered identity card n of NDPL and Rs. 2000/ in the currency notes of Rs. 1000/ each from the possession of accused Rajiv @ Dimpy were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B and Ex. PW1/C. He has formally arrested the accused and carried out his personal search vide memo Ex.PW1/E, arrest memo Ex. PW1/D and recorded the disclosure statement Ex. PW11/A.
16) In his statement u/s 313 CrPC accused has denied the allegations of the prosecution claiming himself to be innocent and falsely implicated in this case.
17) I have heard Shri Jairam Garg, Ld Amicus Curiae for the accused as well as Ld Addl. PP for the State.
18) Ld Amicus Curiae for the accused has assailed the
FIR no. 512/11
State Vs Rajeev @ Dimpy Page no. 6/23
prosecution case on following grounds:
I. There is no evidence to prove offence of
cheating or impersonation by the accused because in the year 2009 he was employee of SSG Security Agency hired by NDPL and the identity card was issued by SSG Security Agency to him and he has never forged and fabricated it.
II. The recovery of Rs. 2000/ from the possession of the accused does not itself establish that the said amount was extorted by him from the complainant and the said amount is nominal amount which can be carried/possessed by anyone.
III. No offence under Electricity Act is established because no complaint /criminal prosecution has been instituted on the basis of the inspection dated 09/12/2011 which was carried after alleged tampering of the meter by the accused and his associates.
It is therefore vehementally argued that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and he is entitled tobe acquitted.
19) Ld Addl. PP for the State on the other hand argued that the deposition of prosecution witnesses is natural, cogent and straight forward and they have fully supported the prosecution case while corroborating with each other on all material points. It FIR no. 512/11 State Vs Rajeev @ Dimpy Page no. 7/23 is further argued that there is no evidence that the prosecution witnesses were inimical to the accused and they have got him falsely implicated in this case. Ld Addl. PP for the State further argued that the forgery of the identity card has been proved by the prosecution witnesses and he has used the forged identity card claiming himself NDPL official and tampering of the meter at the house of the complainant. It is further argued that from the deposition of the complainant and other witnesses the handing over of Rs. 2000/ to the accused by the complainant has been established because deposition of all the witnesses is natural and same has not been assailed in the crossexamination. Ld Addl. PP for the State therefore argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused and he is liable to be convicted.
20) I have considered the rival submissions and perused the evidence on record.
21) I will discuss the evidence of prosecution in relation to each head of charge separately.
22) CHEATING AND EXTORTION In order to prove the charge under section 420IPC & 384 IPC, complainant PW1 deposed that at about 6pm three boys came to his house claiming to be NDPL employees and told him FIR no. 512/11 State Vs Rajeev @ Dimpy Page no. 8/23 that they had come to check his electricity meter; they had started checking the electricity meter and while checking the meter they had broke open the seals of the meter and told him that a case of theft of electricity will be made against him and demanded Rs. 30,000/ as bribe. He further deposed that on the next day again they repeatedly called him from mobile no. 9212908520; on 05/12/2011 at about 10.15am accused Rajiv present in the court asked him from his mobile to reach NDPL office Industrial Area, PhaseI, Mangolpuri, Delhi and lateron to Kala Mandir Cinema hall on which he reached NDPL office and met Sh.Satish Yadav, HOG Enforcement and apprised him all the facts. Thereafter the NDPL team as well as Shri Satish Yadav reached in front of Kala Mandir Cinema Hall and after reaching there complainant called Rajeev on his mobile phone who came for talking money and he signaled the NDPL Team and as soon as he handed over two currency notes of Rs. 1000/ each to accused Rajeev then on seeing them accused tried to run away but he was apprehended and his two accomplices managed to escape. In the meantime police reached there and accused was having identity card which was checked by Sh. Satish Yadav which was found to be fake and at his instance IO prepared the site plan and identity card was seized by the IO vide seizure FIR no. 512/11 State Vs Rajeev @ Dimpy Page no. 9/23 memo Ex. PW1/B. IO has also prepared a parcel of two currency notes and affixed the seal of SR and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/C.
23) PW3 Sh. Satish Yadav in that regard deposed that on information received from Pradeep Bharti complainant he alongwith his staff reached near Kala mandir cinema hall and complainant Pradeep Bharti called that person to collect the money; thereafter accused present in the court came there and Pradeep Bharti handed over to him money i.e Rs. 2000/ at about 2pm; thereafter accused was apprehended but his two associates manged to flee. He further deposed that accused was carrying one identity card allegedly issued from NDPL having affixed his photograph which was found to be forged identity card. The forged identity card recovered from the accused is proved as Ex. PW1/P3. He further deposed that two currency notes of Rs. 1000/ each which was given by the complainant to accused were recovered from the upper pocket of shirt of the accused which were seized by the IO.
24) PW7 Mahender Kumar Bansal is proprietor of M/s SSGEL deposed that his company provided worker to NDPL to install meter at the houses/premises of the consumers on behalf of NDPL; he used to recruit temporary employee in that regard; FIR no. 512/11
State Vs Rajeev @ Dimpy Page no. 10/23 identity card of the employee was to be filled by the NDPL office and his agency signed the said identity card. He further deposed that IO of this case has shown him one identity card of Rajiv for verification and after verification found that the said identity card was not issued by his office and said Rajiv had not worked as worker in his company. He has identified the said identity card as Ex. PW5/C and stated that number mentioned on the said identity card no. NE 6778 as Ex. PW5/B was issued to one Mukesh on 29/11/2010 and the validity of the said Icard had expired on 11/07/2011 and thereafter the said identity card was deposited in the office of the NDPL. Nothing was suggested to this witness that identity card was issued by the agency by PW7 as was claimed by the accused in his statement u/s 313 CrPC.
25) In order to prove the charge for extortion by the accused the prosecution has placed on record CDR and ID chart alongwith location of the telephone of accused as well as complainant. As per consumer application form Ex. PW8/D mobile no. 9212908520 was issued in the name of Surenderpal father of the accused and call details record w.e.f 01/11/2011 to 05/12/2011 has been placed on record as Ex. PW8/A. The Cell ID Chart with location of the said mobile between 01/11/2011 to 05/12/2011 is proved as Ex. PW8/C collectively. The certificate FIR no. 512/11 State Vs Rajeev @ Dimpy Page no. 11/23 u/s 65 (B) of the Indian Evidence Act in that regard as Ex.PW8/B. Similarly mobile no. 9971141479 was issued in the name of complainant Pradeep Bharti vide consumer application form as Ex. PW6/D. The call details of the said mobile no. 9971141479 w.e.f 29/10/2011 to 05/12/2011 has been proved as Ex. PW6/A. The certificate u/s 65 (B) of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW6/E. The Cell ID chart as Ex. PW6/C. As per call details Ex. PW8/A of mobile no. 9212908520 in the name of father of the accused which was being used by accused, on 05/12/2011 at about 11.45am. 11.46am, 12.30pm, 14.41pm, 14.58pm 15.04pm and 15.07pm, calls were made to mobile of complainant no. 9971141479. As per deposition of the complainant he called the accused at Kalamandir Cinema hall by making a call at about 2pm to the mobile number of the accused. As per call details Ex.PW8/A a call is received at mobile of the accused from the mobile of complainant on 05/12/2011 at a bout 3.21pm. As per call details Ex. PW6/A i.e call details of mobile of the complainant w.e.f 28/10/2011 to 05/12/2011, the calls has been made from the complainant to the mobile of the accused on 05/12/2011 at about 12.47pm and also at 15.21pm and in between there were 9 calls made by the accused to the complainant between 14.29pm to 15.16pm.
FIR no. 512/11
State Vs Rajeev @ Dimpy Page no. 12/23 26) In his statement u/s 313 CrPC the reply to question no.
36, 37, 38 and 39 with regard to call details, location chart, consumer application form of mobile no. 9212908520 issued in the name of Surenderpal S/o Shri Mohan Lal Pratap, father of the accused, the accused has simply replied by saying that he did not know.
27) In the crossexamination of PW8 Sh. Rajiv Ranjan, nothing was suggested that the mobile no. 9212908520 does not belong to the father of the accused and was not used by accused on 05/12/2011 for communicating with complainant.
28) The offence of cheating, cheating by impersonation and Extortion are defined in IPC as under:
"Section 415:Cheating: Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "Cheat".FIR no. 512/11
State Vs Rajeev @ Dimpy Page no. 13/23 Section 416: Cheating by personation: A person is said to "cheat by personation" if he cheats by pretending to be some other person, or by knowingly substituting one person for another, or representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is.
Section 383 Extortion: Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits "Extortion"
29) The deposition of the complainant PW1 remained unassailed.In his crossexamination he has clearly established the ingredients of cheating as defined u/s 415 IPC as well as cheating by personation as defined u/s 416 IPC. It is evident from his deposition wherein he has deposed that on 03/12/2011 at about 6pm accused alongwith two other persons came to his house and told him that they were from NDPL and had come to check his electricity meter and started checking the electricity meter and while checking the meter they have broken the seals of the meter FIR no. 512/11 State Vs Rajeev @ Dimpy Page no. 14/23 by asking him to go outside the house. He further deposed that thereafter they told him that a case of theft of electricity will be filed against him because of the tampering of the meter and demanded Rs. 30,000/ as bribe for not making the case of theft of electricity. He further deposed that on the next day 05/12/2011 at about 10.15 am accused repeatedly called him on his mobile phone no. 9971141479 from mobile no. 9212908520 and demanded bribe and asked him to reach near Kala Mandir Cinema Hall; when he reached infront of Kala Mandir Cinema hall complainant handed over Rs. 2000/ to accused. He further deposed that accused was apprehended in his presence by Satish Yadav when accused tried to run away and from his possession a fake identity card of NDPL was recovered alongwith two currency notes of Rs. 1000/ and he was handed over to police who reached on the spot. The mobile phone recovered from the possession of the accused is proved as Ex. PW1/P2 by PW1 in the court stating that Samsung Tata Indicom was used by the accused and was recovered from his possession. He has also identified identity card recovered from the accused as Ex. PW1/P3. The currency notes of Rs. 1000/each were identified by him as Ex. PW1/P1 stating that same were recovered from the possession of the accused and were handed over by him. FIR no. 512/11
State Vs Rajeev @ Dimpy Page no. 15/23 30) The deposition of PW1 has been corroborated by PW3
Satish Yadav on all material points who deposed that on information received from Pradeep Bharti complainant he alongwith his staff reached near Kala mandir cinema hall and complainant Pradeep Bharti called that person to collect the money; thereafter accused present in the court came there and Pradeep Bharti handed over to him money i.e Rs. 2000/ at about 2pm; thereafter accused was apprehended but his two associates manged to flee. He further deposed that accused was carrying one identity card allegedly issued from NDPL having affixed his photograph which was found to be forged identity card. The forged identity card recovered from the accused is proved as Ex. PW1/P3. He further deposed that two currency notes of Rs. 1000/ each which were given by the complainant to accused were recovered from the upper pocket of shirt of the accused which were seized by the IO.
31) There is nothing in the crossexamination of these witnesses so as to assail their deposition. Thus, it has been established from the deposition of PW1, PW3, PW6, PW7 and PW8 that it was the accused who accompanied by his two associates not arrested had gone to house of the complainant pretending themselves to be NDPL employees and dishonestly FIR no. 512/11 State Vs Rajeev @ Dimpy Page no. 16/23 induced the complainant to permit them to enter his house to check their meter and as a result the meter was tampered by them and thereafter they threatened the complainant about the electricity theft case to be booked against him and demanded a bribe of Rs. 30,000/ for not making the electricity theft case against him. It has further been established that on the next day i.e 05/12/2011 at about 10.15am accused Rajiv had made several calls from his mobile no. 9212908520 which was recovered from his possession to the mobile of the complainant no. 9971141479 and demanded money from him and asked him to come at place near Kala Mandir Cinema hall. It is further established that accused reached there where complainant in the presence of NDPL team as well as Shri Satish Yadav handed over two currency notes of Rs. 1000/ each to accused Rajeev in the meantime accused was apprehended and the police also reached there and got recovered from his possession one mobile phone and a fake identity card. Thus the ingredients of the offence of cheating and cheating by personation has been established beyond reasonable doubt. Their testimony further established that accused has intentionally put the complainant in fear of making a false electricity case against him and dishonestly induced the complainant to part with Rs. 2000/ which were recovered from FIR no. 512/11 State Vs Rajeev @ Dimpy Page no. 17/23 the possession of the accused and as such ingredients defined u/s 383 IPC punishable u/s 384IPC is also proved beyond reasonable doubt.
32) Regarding the charge for the offence u/s 411 IPC, it has been established from the deposition of the prosecution witnesses PW1, PW3 and PW12 that accused has extorted a sum of Rs. 2000/ from the complainant and said extorted amount of Rs. 2000/ i.e currency notes of Rs. 1000/ each as Ex. PW1/P1 collectively were recovered from his possession and the said amount was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/C. The amount so recovered from his possession was also received by way of extortion from the complainant and said amount was dishonestly received and retained by him to be stolen property recovered from his possession and hence the offence u/s 411 IPC has also been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
33) Regarding the offence u/s 468 IPC i.e forgery of identity card and its use by the accused, there is no evidence to show that the said identity card was forged and fabricated by the accused himself. However, it is not the case that he has shown the identity card while impersonating him as a NDPL official. The evidence shows that identity card was recovered after arrest of the accused by the police from his possession. Therefore, there FIR no. 512/11 State Vs Rajeev @ Dimpy Page no. 18/23 is no occasion for him to use this forged identity card for pretending as NDPL employee. The ingredients of the offence u/s 468 IPC and under section 471 IPC are not established beyond reasonable doubt.
34) Regarding the offence u/s 138 D of the Electricity Act, PW4 Surender Chaudhary, Senior Manager of the complainant company has deposed that on 09/12/2011 he alongwith Umesh Sharma and photographer checked the meter no. 40028022 installed at house no. 672, HBlock, Mangolpuri, Delhi in the name of Rameshwar, father of the complainant. He further deposed that on checking the meter he found pink colour paper was pasted on the meter box which was removed and after removal, meter terminal seal, half seals were found missing. He further deposed that on segregation no physical abnormality found inside the meter and inspection was carried out in the presence of Pradeep Bharti and inspection report was prepared and proved and marked as markA.
35) Section 138 (D) of the Electricity Act, 2003 is reproduced as under: "Section 138 (D): whoever maliciously injures any meter, indicator, or apparatus belonging to a licensee or wilfully or fraudulently alters the index of any such meter, indicator or apparatus FIR no. 512/11 State Vs Rajeev @ Dimpy Page no. 19/23 or prevents any such meter, indicator or apparatus from duly registering. "
36) On perusal of the inspection report Ex. PW10/A and the deposition of PW10 Umesh Sharma it is found that at the time of inspection only meter terminal seal and half seals were found missing but no physical abnormality was found inside the meter and working of the meter was OK as find mentioned in the inspection report. It has been established in the evidence of the complainant and other witnesses that accused alongwith two associates intentionally had access to the meter of the complainant with a malafide intention to intimidate the complainant/user of the meter for making a false case of theft of electricity and for that purpose he alongwith his associates has maliciously injured the meter by breaking the terminal and half seals which at the time of inspection were found missing and pink colour paper was found pasted on it. The deposition of the complainant and other witnesses in that regard remained unassailed in their crossexamination. The offence u/s 138 (D) of the Electricity Act, 2003 stands proved beyond reasonable doubt.
37) From the above discussions, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence u/s FIR no. 512/11 State Vs Rajeev @ Dimpy Page no. 20/23 420/384/411 IPC and u/s 138 (D) of the Electricity Act, 2003. I, therefore, hold accused Rajeev @ Dimpy guilty and convict him for the offence under Section 384/411/420IPC and u/s 138(D) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT th ON 26 March, 2014 (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) ASJ (ELECTRICITY) NORTH WEST DISTRICT ROHINI :DELHI FIR no. 512/11 State Vs Rajeev @ Dimpy Page no. 21/23 IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN: ASJ ( ELECTRICITY):NW DISTRICT:ROHINI: DELHI FIR no. 512/11 Unique Case ID no. 02404R0064352012 Police station : Mangolpuri U/S 420/411/384IPC & 138 Electricity Act State V/s Rajeev @ Dimpy ORDERS ON SENTENCE 31/03/2014 Present: Ld. Addl. P.P for State Ld counsel Shri K.B. Chaudhary and Ms. Shiwani Sharma AM of the complainant company.
Convict is present with Ld Amicus Curiae Shri Jairam Garg.
(1) Heard on the point of sentence. (2) It is stated by the Ld Amicus Curiae that accused is
now earning his livelihood by assisting his brother for supplying vegetables in hotel/restaurant/Dhabas and he is a young boy and has already suffered a lot remaining in jail in this case about 8 months. Ld Amicus Curiae therefore prayed for a lenient view to be taken against him and he may be sentenced to the imprisonment for the period already undergone. (3) Ld. Addl. P.P on the other hand submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the act of the accused he should be sentenced maximum imprisonment. (4) I have considered the rival submissions made at bar. FIR no. 512/11
State Vs Rajeev @ Dimpy Page no. 22/23 Brother of accused is also present and states that conduct of the accused is improved a lot and he is engaged in his work Sincerely. The accused remained in Judicial Custody in this case for a period of 7 months and 16 days.
(5) In the light of the submissions made on behalf of the convict and considering his young age and need of his rehabilitation in the society. I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice shall be met if convict is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 7 months and 16 days for the offences committed by him.
(6) The benefit of u/s 428 CrPC is also extended to him. (7) Accused/convict is ordered to furnished personal bond/surety bond for a sum of Rs. 20,000/ u/s 437A CrPC which shall remain in force for a period of six months. Bail bonds furnished and accepted.
(8) Let a copy of the judgment and the order on sentence be given to the convict free of cost.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31/03/2014 (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE SPECIAL ELECTRICITY COURT NORTH WEST DISTRICT ROHINI:DELHI:
FIR no. 512/11
State Vs Rajeev @ Dimpy Page no. 23/23