Delhi District Court
Unknown vs State Of Haryana on 24 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRITU RAJ
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE01
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
TITLE: : State v. Sanjay Jain & Ors.
FIR NO. : 658/1999
P.S. : Sultanpuri
RNO. : 5360272016
Unique ID No. : 02401R0197782001
Date of commission of offence : 28.06.1999
Date of institution : 1808.2001
Name of Informant/complainant : Manoj Kumar
Name of accused : Sanjay Jain
Sushil Kalra
Yashbir
Rajesh Dahiya
Offence/s complained of : S. 420/468/471/ 34 IPC
S. 7, Essential Commodities Act, 1955
Cognizance under section/s : S. 420/468/471/ 34 IPC
S. 7, Essential Commodities Act, 1955
Chages framed under section/s : S. 420/468/471/ 34 IPC
S. 7, Essential Commodities Act, 1955
Plea of the Accused : Not guilty
Final Order : Acquittal
Date of pronouncement : 24022020
For the Prosecution : Ld. APP
For the Defence : Sh. Sanjeev Kumar
Present : Pritu Raj
M.M. 01,
Rohini Courts, Delhi.
FIR No. 658/1999 State v Sanjay Jain & Others Page No.1 of 22
JUDGEMENT
1. The accused persons are facing trial for offences u/s 420/468/471/34 IPC and u/s 7, Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
2. Stated succinctly, facts germane for the case of the prosecution are that on 29 061999, the complainant Manoj Kumar s/o Shivji Sahay met Jaydev Singh and stated that he had bought five cement sacks at the rate of Rs. 135/sack for the repair of his house from Sanjay Jain, Vimal Chand Jain, R/O 146B/1, Maharani Bagh. Delhi. When he opened the sacks of cement, he found that the same was adulterated.
3. On the written application of the informant, Sultanpuri P.S. registered in rela tion to the above incident as FIR no. 658/1999 on 29.06.1999 and, after investiga tion, submitted the charge sheet on 18082001 against the aforementioned accused persons. Cognizance was taken vide. order dated 18.08.2001.
4. Charges u/s S. 420/468/471/ 34 IPC and S. 7, Essential Commodities Act, 1955 I.P.C were framed and read over to all accused, in Hindi, on 24.02.2006 to which they denied the incident and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution, in order to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt, exam ined eleven witnesses during trial.
FIR No. 658/1999 State v Sanjay Jain & Others Page No.2 of 22
6. PW1/T.K. Mukherjee working with Shree Ram Cement deposed that in July, 1999, he received a call from PS: Mangolpuiri that cement bags have been seized in a godown which also have Shree Ram Cement Bags and upon verification, it was found that the said bags were not original bags of the company but were duplicate bags. PW1 prepared his report Mark A in this respect.
7. PW2/Mahender Singh deposed that in the year 1999, he let out his godown in Rajiv Nagar Colony measuring about 150 yards to Rajesh to be used as a godown of cement.he stated that the gown was in the care of the accused Rajesh. He was cross examined by the Ld. APP.
8. PW3/ P.K. Singhal deposed that he alongiwth his colleague V P Sharma reached PS Sultanpurui where some bags of cement were found lying. Some were empty and some were filled. He deposed that the bags were checked by him and his colleague and found that they were not genuine. The report in this regard has been submitted as PW3/A.
9. PW 4 deposed that he does not remember the date when he reached PS Sultan puri for checking bags due to lapse of time. He stated that when he reached PS Sul tanpuri, he found some bas filled whereas some were full. He verified those bags were forged and the detailed report in this regard has been submitted as PW3/A. FIR No. 658/1999 State v Sanjay Jain & Others Page No.3 of 22
10. PW5/Raj Kumar deposed that he is the registered owner of the truck no. DL 1L D 8116 and he took his truck on superdari vide superdarinama Ex. PW5/A and bond is Ex. PW5/B.
11. PW6/ D.R. Tamta deposed that on 10.09.1999, when he was holding the court of collector under the Essential commoditiies Act, 1955 at no. 2, under Hill Road, Delhi, he had passed an interim order Ex. PW6/A u/s 6A of E.C. Act vide no. Col lector (N&NW)/99/116 dated 10.09.1999 regarding this case.
12. PW7/ Dr. Subhai Laxmi deposed that on 05.09.99, when she was posted and working as Joint Director, Centre for calibration Testing and Quality Control, Na tional counsel for cement and building materials i.e. independent testing laborato ries, 34 km stone, Delhi Mathura Road, Ballabh garh, Haryana, under her supervi sion, the samples received pertaining to this case were chemically analyzed in the said department and the test certificates were prepared which are Ex. PW7/A to PW7/Z and PW7/A1 to PW7/I1.
13. PW8/ASI Darshan Kumar deposed that on 29.06.99, while posted as Duty of ficer from 04.00 pm to 12 midnight, he received rukka through Ct. Yogender sent by SI Jaidev, at about 07.55 pm and on the basis of same, he registered the present FIR Ex. PW8/A and made endorsement on the rukka Ex. PW8/B. FIR No. 658/1999 State v Sanjay Jain & Others Page No.4 of 22
14. PW9/ Insp. Anjay Tomar deposed that on 29.11.2000, he was posted at Opera tion Cell, NorthWest Distt, PS: Saraswati Vihar, as SI and on that day, the investi gation of the present case was entrusted to him by Incharge Operation Cell Insp. Ram Niwas, then posted at Operation Cell through his reader concerned by way of handing over the present case file for further investigation and after going through and perusal of the entire documents/ case file, it was revealed that the requisite pro ceedings were pending before the court of Sh. N.K. Sharma, controller Cement North West Food and Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department K Block Vikas Bhawan, at ITO, Delhi and during the period of November, 2000 to February 2001, he had attended the court proceedings before the said authority and he re ceived order Ex. PW9/A for confiscation u/s 6 A of Essential Commodities Act which was passed by the said authority on 02.02.2001. He further deposed that after completion of charge sheet, he filed the same before the court.
15. PW10/ Retd. SI Jai Dev deposed that on 29.06.1999, he along with Insp. Ma hender Singh and other police officials was on patrolling duty on a govt vehicle and during patrolling, they reached at Badli village where they met with complainant and recorded his statement Ex. PW10/A. He further deposed that the complainant produced five plastic kattas containing cement and the kattas were already opened and one kilo grams cement from each katta was taken out as a sample. He further deposed that the kattas containing cement were tied with the help of rope and sealed with the seal of JD and samples were also sealed with the seal of JD and seal after FIR No. 658/1999 State v Sanjay Jain & Others Page No.5 of 22 use handed over to HC Ramesh. He further deposed that FSL form was filled and the case property was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW10/B, rukka Ex. PW10/C was prepared and was handed over to Ct. Yogender for registration of FIR.
16. PW10 further deposed that he along with the complainant Manoj Kumar, other police officials and case property reached Begum Pur Kachi colony, Rajiv Nagar Godown belonging to Mahender Singh Yadav and prepared site plan Ex. PW10/D and photographs of the spot were also taken and he also met the accused Sanjay Jain. He further deposed that upon the search of godown, around 2213 kattas con taining cement were found and out of which around 300 kattas were empty, some other mixing implements were also found at the godown, 3 tempos were also found standing in front of the godown. He further deposed that the above said articles ex cept tempo were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW10/E and tempos were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW10/F to PW10/H. He further deposed that he interrogated the accused Sanjay Jain and recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW10/J and he was arrested and personally searched.
17. PW11/ASI Mahavir Singh PW11/ASI Mahavir Singh deposed that he along with Insp. Mahender Singh and other police officials were on patrolling duty on a govt vehicle and during patrolling, they reached at Badli village where they met with complainant and recorded his statement. He further stated that they went to the FIR No. 658/1999 State v Sanjay Jain & Others Page No.6 of 22 house of the complainant where the complainant produced five kattas of cement which were already opened. one kilo grams cement from each katta was taken out as a sample. He further deposed that the kattas containing cement were tied with the help of rope and sealed with the seal of JD and samples were also sealed with the seal of JD and seal after use handed over to. The IO then prepared the rukka and handed the same to Ct. Yogender for registration of FIR.Thereafter, he and other po lice officials reached reached the spot i.e. Rajiv Nagar, Begum Pur, Kacchi Colony Delhi and the site map was prepared by IO at the instance of the complainant. The godown was searched and the case property was serized / Ct. Yogender later reached the spot with copy of original rukka and the same was handed to IO. IO recorded the disclosure statement of accused Sanjay Jain and he was arrested. He was personally searched and the accused was brought to police station and put behind bars.
18. Evidence on behalf of the prosecution was closed vide order dated 16042019 and the SA of the accused was recorded on 13052019. wherein the accused chose not to lead any defense evidence. The matter was fixed for final arguments vide or der dated 13052019. Final arguments were heard on behalf of both parties on 22 012020 and the matter was fixed for judgment vide an order of same date.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE FIR No. 658/1999 State v Sanjay Jain & Others Page No.7 of 22
19. Before embarking to determine the culpability of the accused with regard to charges u/s 420 I.P.C., it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant sections for the sake of brevity.
Section 420 IPC states that:
420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of prop erty.--Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Cheating had been defined u/s 415 IPC which states that:
415. Cheating.--Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraud ulently 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 prop erty, is said to "cheat".
Explanation.--A dishonest concealment of facts is a de ception within the meaning of this section.
20. The first charge leveled against the accused persons are that they cheated the complainant by selling him adulterated cement in forged bags of Birla Cement at the FIR No. 658/1999 State v Sanjay Jain & Others Page No.8 of 22 rate of Rs. 135/sack. In order to make out an offence under section 420 IPC, it is es sential that the following ingredients are proved: (i) there should be fraudulent or dis honest inducement of a person by deceiving him, (ii) (a) the person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or (b) the person so deceived should be intentionally in duced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and (iii) in cases covered by (ii) (b), the act of omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property.
21. In the present case, the complainant is question who has been alleged to be cheated by the act of accused persons has not been examined by the prosecution. No evidence, whether oral or documentary, has been adduced on behalf to the prosecu tion to bring home the act of fraudulent or dishonest inducement by the accused per sons which has resulted in the the complainant buying the bags of spurious cement. In the absence of the complainant, the original complaint filed on record remains un proved. The allegation that the alleged cement bags were filled with spurious cement and were sold to the complainant was not proved in the absence of the complaint. There is no linking evidence produced on record to connect the accused with the al leged offences. It was the complainant only who could have proved on record that the accused persons had sold bags of adulterated cement to him. As such whatever infor FIR No. 658/1999 State v Sanjay Jain & Others Page No.9 of 22 mation has been given by the complainant is not admissible as evidence in the present case as per the Provisions in Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is well settled that nonexamination of the material witnesses adversely effects the case of the pros ecution and an inference is to be drawn against the prosecution for the same and in case no witness is available or could not be produced then the benefit is to be given to the accused only and not to the Prosecution. The nonexamination of the com plainant/victim is fatal for the case of the prosecution.
22. Another issue to be considered here is identity of the case property, samples of which were sent for chemical examination to FSL. PW10 , SI Jay Dev has deposed before this Court 'Complainant also produced five kattas containing cement and kattas were already opened. One Kilo Grams Cement from each katta was taken out as a sample." He furhter states in his crossexamination, "I do not re member whether the samples were drawn from cement bags lying in the godown."
23. The deposition of PW 10 makes it amply clear that the case property, which was seized vide seizure memo and was duly exhibited as P.W. 10/B, was produced by the complainant in five kattas which were already opened when the same was pro duced before the police authorities. Moreover, the samples which were sent to FSL for obtaining the report chemical examiner were taken from the kattas, produced by FIR No. 658/1999 State v Sanjay Jain & Others Page No.10 of 22 the complainant, which were already opened. No sample had been taken from the godown from the accused persons for getting the same chemically examined. There is nothing on records to connect that accused persons with the sample obtained and sent for chemical examination. Resultedly, the reports of the chemical examiner would not be of any help to the prosecution since the samples in question were not seized by the accused persons or their premises.
24. The prosecution has therefore miserably failed to discharge its burden that the accused persons had fraudulently induced the complainant so as to induce him into buying the bags of allegedly spurious cement. The accused are therefore acquitted of the offences u/s 420/34 IPC.
Determination qua Section 468/471/34 IPC Section 468 states that :
468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.--Whoever com mits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Forgery has been defined in section 463 as:
463. Forgery: Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the pub FIR No. 658/1999 State v Sanjay Jain & Others Page No.11 of 22 lic or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.
Section 471 IPC states as follows:
471. Using as genuine a forged 1[document or electronic record].--Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any 1[document or electronic record] which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged 1[document or electronic record], shall be punished in the same man ner as if he had forged such 1[document or electronic record].
The essentials to make out an offence under section 468 are:
1. Commission of Forgery as defined u/s 463 IPC.
2. Intention to use such forged document for the purpose of cheating.
25. The primary question which arises is whether forgery has been committed by the accused persons in the present case? In order to constitute an act of forgery, it is essential to prove the making of false documents/electronic records with an in tention to cause (a) damage to the public or any person; or (b) to support any claim or title; or (c) to cause any person to part with any property; or (d) to enter into any ex press or implied contract, or (e)with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be com mitted.
FIR No. 658/1999 State v Sanjay Jain & Others Page No.12 of 22 The first thing required to be proved is that the accused persons forged cement bags for the purpose of cheating the complainant. Forgery has its origin in the French word "Forger", which signifies: "to frame or fashion a thing as the smith doth his worke upon the anvill. And it is used in our law for the fraudulant making and publishing of false writings to the prejudice of another mans right" (Termes de la Ley) (Stroud's ju dicial Dictionary, Fifth Edition Vol. 2). Forgery under the Indian Penal Code is an of fence which has been defined in Section 463, while Section 464 deals with the mak ing of a false document. Section 465 deals with the making of a false document. Sec tion 465 prescribes punishment for forgery. "Forged document" is defined in Section 470 while Section 471 deals with the crime of using as genuine, the forged document.
26. The burden in the present case lies upon the prosecution to prove that the ac cused persons forged empty cement bags of Ambuja Cement in order to cheat the complainant into buying the same. Two things need to be proved: firstly, the element of forgery and secondly, the document which has been forged should be intended to be used for the purposes of cheating.
27. In order to discharge the said burden, the prosecution has examined two wit nesses PW1, PW 3 and PW4.
FIR No. 658/1999 State v Sanjay Jain & Others Page No.13 of 22
28. PW 1 had been working as a deputy sales manager at the time when he in spected the bags seized police authorities from the godown of the accused persons and he submitted his report marked X. Whereas PW3 P K Singhal was working as Manager (Marketing) Manglam Cement Limited (Birla Uttam Cement) at the time and been called to verify the genuineness of cement bags seized by the police and he submitted his report which has been marked as PW3/A. PW4, who was working as an assistant chemist, was examined in respect to genuineness of the cement bags seized and he deposed that the bags seized by the police authorities are not genuine. Let us examine the testimony of each witness so adduced on the point of genuine ness/forgery of the seized cement bags.
29. The question now arises is what is that evidentiary value of the evidence ten dered by these two witnesses. PW1 has stated in his crossexamination that that he does not have any special knowledge in regard to polyester, jute or cotton bags. He has further admitted that his report, marked as Mark X, does not specify the number of knots per inch in bags originally fabricated by the company as compared to the bags seized by the police authorities. He has therefore admitted that he does not have any special qualification to render his opinion viable as expert evidence under the provisions of Sec. 45 Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
FIR No. 658/1999 State v Sanjay Jain & Others Page No.14 of 22
30. Further, PW3 has stated in his cross examination that he has never dealt with the manufacturing of bags in course of his work profile. Perusal of his testimony makes it clear that he had been working as Manager(Marketing) in Birla Cements. He has exhibited a report marked as PW3/A, prepared by him along with PW4 V P Sharma, wherein he stated that that the cement bags were forged and not original ones of the company claiming to which they belonged. PW 3 further goes on to state in his cross examination that the report exhibited as PW3/A has been written by the police and was subsequently signed by him. He subsequently goes on to voluntarily say that the report was read by him the same amounting to an improvement to his previous version and casts a doubt on the evidentiary value of his testimony.
31. Coming to the evidentiary value of the testimony rendered by PW4, it be comes apparently clear from a perusal of the same that the said witness has stated, in his crossexamination, that the report submitted by him does not specify the technical specification of knots per inch on the basis of which the he stated the bags recovered by the police to be forged. His testimony as an alleged expert is further undermined by the fact that the said witness has admitted in his cross examination that he never been involved in the manufacture of bags.
32. An expert witness is a person who, by reasons of education or special training, possesses knowledge of some particular subject area in greater depth than the public FIR No. 658/1999 State v Sanjay Jain & Others Page No.15 of 22 at large. It is his job to assist the judge to understand complicated subjects not within the knowledge of average person. The expert witness is by virtue of his specialized expertise present to give opinions.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in Chunni Lal V. State of Haryana, has held, "the court is not to believe the ipse dixit of an expert. Indeed the value of the expert evidence consists mainly on the ability of the witness by reason of his special training and experience to point out the court such important facts as it otherwise might fail to observe and in doing so the court is enabled to exercise its own view or judgment respecting the cogency of reasons and the consequent value of the conclusions formed thereon. The opinion is required to be presented in a convenient manner and the reasons for a conclusion based on a certain visible evidence, properly placed be fore the court. In other words the value of expert evidence depends largely on the co gency of reasons on which it is based."
33. It is a settled principle of law that it is binding on the expert to mention the grounds for his opinion based on reasoning. It means, only the words in the report are not important, while accepting the opinion of the expert by the Court. But the opinion must be based on certain grounds.
FIR No. 658/1999 State v Sanjay Jain & Others Page No.16 of 22
34. Applying the ratio enunciated above to the facts of the present case, what emerges is that though PW4 has expressed his opinion that the cements bags were forged, no specific reason, like knots per inch or other specification, has been stated by him behind the forming of such opinion. Moreover, the reliability of the report it self has been shrouded in doubt in view of the statement by PW3 wherein improve ment has been made the said witness as regard to the author/preparation of the said exhibit/report.
35. In view of the above discussion, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden that the cement bags had been forged by the accused persons with the intention of cheating under section 468 IPC. Further more, since the element of forgery has not been proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt, the prosecution has failed to discharge it's burden under section 471 IPC. The accused persons are therefore acquitted of the offences u/s 468/471/ 34 IPC.
Determination qua violation of S. 7 Essential Commodities Act, 1955 The order issued by Govt. of India, Ministry of Industry, (department of Industrial Policy and Promotion) dated 19071995, has been notified in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955).
FIR No. 658/1999 State v Sanjay Jain & Others Page No.17 of 22 Paragraph 2(a) of the said enactment defines Appropriate authority as, "Appropriate Authority" means an officer not below the rank of an Under Secretary to the. Government of India or an officer not below the runt of a Genera] Manager, District Industries Centre of a State Government us may be appointed by the Central Government or the State Gov ernment by a notification published in the Official.
Gazette to implement the provisions of this Order;
Paragraph 3 of the said enactment is reproduced as follows,
3. Prohibition to manufacture, sale and store of cement which is not of the prescribed standard--(1) No person shall himself or by any person on his behalf, manufacture or store for sale, sell or distribute cement which does not conform to the prescribed standard and which do not bear the standard Mark :
Provided that the Central Government may, on an appli cation made, permit any person to manufacture or store for sale, or sell or distribute cement without Standard Murk for a period of not exceeding one hundred and twenty days, if it is satisfied that the grant of regular Stan dard Mark is pending with the authority under the Bureau of Indian Standards Ad, 1986:
Provided further that the Central Government may, on an application made, grant exemption from Standard Mark, if it is satisfied that the cement manufactured and despatched is for export purpose and is as per the Over 1 seas Standaids or as per Buyers Specifications and' o not coincide with the corresponding requirements of the In dian Standards.
FIR No. 658/1999 State v Sanjay Jain & Others Page No.18 of 22 (2) The cement which do not conform to the prescribed standard shall be destroyed immediately with a report to the Appropriate Authority.
Further, paragraph 6 (c) of the said notification deals with the powers of search and seizure and states that:
6. Power to call for information.--The Appropriate Au thority may. with a view to secure compliance with this Order:--
(c) cause an officer duly authorised under paragraph 8 to enter and search any premises and seize cement in respect of which it has reason to believe that a contravention of this Order has been made or tho said cement is not of the prescribed standard;
Further, paragraph 8 of the notification states that:
8. Delegation of powers.--The Appropriate Authority may by general or special order in writing authorise any officer to exercise on its behalf all or any of its functions under this Order :
Provided that no officer who is not of a Gazetted rank, shall be authorized by the Appropriate Authority to exer cise the powers of search and seizure under Clause (c) of paragraph 6.
FIR No. 658/1999 State v Sanjay Jain & Others Page No.19 of 22
36. The primary issue to be decided here is there the proceedings undertaken by the police authorities to raid the premises of the accused and seizure of cement which had been allegedly stored there in contravention of the notification mentioned above?
37. The perusal of the aforementioned provisions of the notification makes it am ply clear that search and seizure in terms of the notification, as contained in para graph 6 (c) can be carried out by any officer authorised by the Appropriate authority in this regard. however, such officer cannot be be bellow the rank of a gazetted offi cer, as stated in the proviso to the said paragraph. The only question which remains to be decided is whether the search and seizure carried out personnel of Delhi police, who were not so specially authorized by the Appropriate Authority, vitiates the entire proceedings?
38. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Raj Kumar Gupta v. State 1994 SCC On line Del 323, while discussing the effect of noncompliance with provisions with re gard to authorisation for carrying out search and seizure with regard to a control order issued under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act and setting aside the judg ment of conviction and the order of sentence, held as follows:
"Be it as it may be I do feel that Clause 9(c) contains valu able safeguards for the liberty of the citizen in order to ex tend protection to him from illfounded or frivolous prose cution or harassment. Any cavalier approach to such a FIR No. 658/1999 State v Sanjay Jain & Others Page No.20 of 22 statutory safeguard may lead to farreaching consequences.
It is probably on account of acute awareness of such fall out that the Clause makes it clear that besides the Commis sioner himself, the power to conduct searches etc. would be exercised by such officers only who have been so authorised in writing by him. Unfortunately, in the case in hand no such authorization has been placed on the record."
The Hon'ble Court further goes on to observe, "Since by the exercise of power conferred by Clause 9(c) a serious invasion is made upon the rights, privacy and free dom of a person, it must necessarily be exercised strictly and in conformity with the dictates of law and only by one who is authorised by law to so exercise. It is not a case of error of judgment on the part of the Inspector concerned. It is also not a case of irregularity in the course of entry, search and seizure committed by an officer acting otherwise in pursuance of the authorization. It is a case where the of ficer acted sans authority. He exercised power which was not there. And he exercised it when even the conditions for FIR No. 658/1999 State v Sanjay Jain & Others Page No.21 of 22 its exercise were not satisfied. It is this which vitiates the entire proceeding."
39. It is the case of the prosecution that the raid at the premises was carried out by the a police party consisting of Retd. SI Jai Dev (PW 10), and ASI Mahavir Singh (PW 11), among other officials. PW10 and PW11 have admitted in their crossex amination that they had raided the premises of the accused without any authorization from the appropriate authority. In view of the ratio laid down in Raj Kumar Gupta, search and seizure operation without obtaining the requisite authorisation vitiates the entire proceeding. The accused persons are accordingly acquitted of the charges u/s 7 Essential Commodities Act 1955.
40. In view of the above discussion and in the light of abovementioned case laws, the court is of the considered opinion that the offence 420/468/471/ 34 IPC and S. 7, Essential Commodities Act, 1955 as alleged against the accused persons have not been proved. Accordingly, the accused Sanjay Jain, Sushil Kalra, Yashbir and Ra jesh Dahiya are acquitted under sections 420/468/471/ 34 IPC and S. 7, Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
Announced in the open court (Pritu Raj)
on 24th February, 2020 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
ROHINI DELHI
FIR No. 658/1999 State v Sanjay Jain & Others Page No.22 of 22