Delhi District Court
State vs Waseem on 14 October, 2025
CNR No.: DLWT020070462021
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANSHUL SINGHAL
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-04, WEST
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No.: DLWT020070462021
Cr. Case: 4208/2021
FIR No.: 171/2021
PS: Moti Nagar
U/s.: 411/34 IPC
State
versus
1. Waseem
S/o Sh. Nasruddin
R/o H.No. 428, Gali No. 4, Old Mustafabad, Delhi
2. Mohd. Imran @ Waseem
S/o Sh. Mohd. Abdul Hakim
R/o H.No. C-224, Gali No. 8, Babu Nagar, Old Mustafabad, Delhi.
JUDGMENT
Date of Commission of Offence : 23.02.2021 Name of Complainant : Mohit Saini Offence Complained of : u/s. 411 IPC Plea of Accused : Not Guilty Date when judgment was reserved : 14.10.2025 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 14.10.2025 Final Order : Acquitted FIR No. 171/2021 State vs. Waseem Etc. Page No. 1 of 4 CNR No.: DLWT020070462021 BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. In the present case, the accused persons are facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) on the allegation that on 23.02.2021 at about 09:15 AM at DLF Gate Park, Near Zakhira Flyover, Moti Nagar, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Moti Nagar, both the accused persons were found possession of one battery make of Amaron of vehicle bearing registration no. DL-9CAB 7853 and that the said battery was received and retained by the accused persons knowing that the same is stolen property, having been stolen on 23.02.2021 at about 04.30 PM at LL Park Gate, Near Zakhira Flyover, Rohtak Road, Moti Nagar, Delhi.
COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL
2. Chargesheet were filed against the accused persons on 15.04.2021 on which cognizance were taken by this court on the same day. Accused persons were summoned to stand trial.
3. Accused persons appeared on 04.10.2021, copy of the chargesheet was supplied to the accused persons on the same day. After due compliance of Section 207 CrPC, charge for offence u/s. 411 IPC were framed against the accused persons on 16.10.2023 by this court, to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In the present case, the prosecution has examined the complainant Sh. Mohit Saini as PW1. During his examination, the complainant has failed to identify the case property. Admittedly, the offence of theft has not been committed in the presence of the complainant and only charge FIR No. 171/2021 State vs. Waseem Etc. Page No. 2 of 4 CNR No.: DLWT020070462021 against the accused persons is pertaining to offence of receiving or retaining stolen property. In absence of any proof that the property recovered from the accused persons was stolen property, no case stands against the accused persons.
5. Carrying on with further prosecution evidence and recording testimonies of formal witnesses would have become only a futile exercise, and wastage of judicial time, resources and energy, as at best the remaining witnesses would have proved the recovery of the property, however, they can never prove the nature of property as stolen property. Thus, the testimony of all the remaining witnesses together is insufficient to prove the allegations against the accused qua offence U/s 411 IPC. Moreover it is to be noted that there is no CCTV footage or other scientific evidence in the present matter on the basis of which the guilt of the accused persons can be established.
6. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration & Anrs. reported as 1996 JCC 507, that "In case where there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction, the valuable time of the court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date". Thus, PE was closed. Since nothing incriminating has come on record against the accused person, as such, recording of statement of accused person were also dispensed with.
7. Brief submissions addressed by the Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for the accused persons have been heard and the documents on FIR No. 171/2021 State vs. Waseem Etc. Page No. 3 of 4 CNR No.: DLWT020070462021 record carefully perused. In the case at hand, the complainant/ injured Sh. Mohit Saini has failed to identify the case property. In absence of any proof that the property recovered from the accused persons was stolen case property, the prosecution has failed to prove that accused persons have committed the offence under consideration.
8. In view of the above discussion, Court is of the opinion that guilt of the accused persons has not been proved and thus they are entitled to be acquitted. Accordingly, accused persons namely (1). Waseem S/o Sh. Nasrudeen and (2). Mohd. Imran @ Waseem are acquitted for offence under Section 411 IPC.
Digitally signed by
ANSHUL ANSHUL SINGHAL
SINGHAL Date: 2025.10.15
13:48:26 +0530
Announced in Open Court (Anshul Singhal)
on 14.10.2025 JMFC-04, West District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Note: This judgment contains 4 pages and each page has been signed by the undersigned. Digitally signed by ANSHUL ANSHUL SINGHAL SINGHAL Date:
2025.10.15 13:48:30 +0530 (Anshul Singhal) JMFC-04, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
FIR No. 171/2021 State vs. Waseem Etc. Page No. 4 of 4