Delhi District Court
State vs Rakesh on 2 January, 2007
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJ KAPOOR: MM: KARKARDOOMA
COURTS: DELHI
FIR NO.459/06
U/S 25 Arms Act
State Vs Rakesh
P.S. Shahdara
JUDGEMENT :355 Cr.P.C
a) the serial number of the case : 137/06
b) the date of the commission : 27.09.2006 of th offence
c) the name of the complainant : HC Sahid Ali (if any)
d) the name of the accused : Rakesh s/o Prasad r/o Village person, and his parentage Sumami PS Janwa Distt. Aligarh, UP. 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 : 02/01/07
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 27.09.06 at about 3.45 pm at DDA Park, Delhi Fire Office, Loni, 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 2 witnesses namely PW1 HC Santosh - Duty officer and PW 2 HC Ct. Saheed Ali-complainant.
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 heard of both sides. I have perused all the testimony of above said witnesses and in this case PW1 is the duty officer and PW2 is recovery witness. No public person has been made witness in this case. 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 unsigned by any public witness therefore keeping in view the citation 'Md. Raffiq 3 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 02.01.2007 ( RAJ KAPOOR) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI