Delhi District Court
State vs Shamshad on 12 January, 2007
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJ KAPOOR: MM: KARKARDOOMA
COURTS: DELHI
FIR NO.22/04
U/S 25 Arms Act
State Vs Shamshad
P.S. Shahdara
JUDGEMENT :355 Cr.P.C
a) the serial number of the case : 31/04
b) the date of the commission : 24.01.2004 of th offence
c) the name of the complainant : HC Bhagwat Singh (if any)
d) the name of the accused : Shamshad s/o Ishaq r/o 285, Gali No. person, and his parentage 10, Kardampuri, Delhi. and residence
e) the offence complained of or : U/s 25 Arms Act proved
f) the plea of the accused and : Pleaded not guilty.
his examination if any
g) final order : Acquitted
h) date of such order : 12/01/07
e) a brief statement of the reasons for the decision:-
Briefly facts of the case are that accused is facing trial on the allegations of the prosecution that on 24.01.04 at 5.45 pm at Singh Petrol Pump, Loni road, West Jyoti Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Shahdara, accused was found in possession of one buttondar knife in contravention of notification issued by Delhi Admn. Accordingly, accused was arrested and booked for the offence u/s 25 Arms Act.2
2. After completion of the usual investigation charge sheet was filed to the court. Copies were supplied to the accused.
3. Arguments on charge were heard, charge u/s 25 Arms Act was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Thereafter, the prosecution has examined 3 witnesses namely PW1 HC Suresh Chand- duty officer, PW2 HC Bhagwat Singh-
complainant and PW3 HC Surjit Singh -MHCM in toto.
5. After that the prosecution evidence was closed and statement of accused u/s 281 Cr. P.C. was recorded in which the defence of the accused was of denial simplicitor. However, no defence evidence was led by the accused.
6. Arguments of both sides heard. I have perused all testimonies of above said witnesses. In this case PW1 is duty officer and PW3 is MHCM, both these witnesses are formal in nature. PW2 is complainant as well as recovery witness. Further, in this cae no public person has been made witness. There is also no DD entry on record regarding their departure and return to PS. Since in this case no public person has been made witness so the seizure memo and search memo remains 3 unsigned by any public witness therefore keeping in view the citation 'Md. Raffiq Vs State - 2000 Cri. L.J. 2401 (Delhi High Court)' the benefit of which goes to the accused. Therefore, keeping in view the above facts and circumstances PE was closed and request of ld. APP for further PE was declined as no fruitful purpose would be served in examining rest of the witnesses. Further, there is no memo regarding handing over the seal to Constable. Accused is in JC w.e.f 28.09.2006 therefore, keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case I acquit the accused by giving him benefit of doubt. He be released from jail if not required in any other case. File be consigned to RR.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURTS ON THIS 12.01.2007 ( RAJ KAPOOR) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI