Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED

2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and on culmination of the same, the chargesheet against the accused was filed. The court took the cognizance against the accused and summons were issued to the accused. On his appearance, a copy of the chargesheet was supplied to the accused in terms of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"). On finding a prima facie case against the accused, notice under Sections 188/286 of IPC and Section 9B of Explosive Act was ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.120/2012, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Rakesh Kumar Page 2 of 20 Date:

INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE

12. The provisions of section 188 IPC, 286 IPC and Section 9B of Explosive Act are as follows:

Section 188 IPC- Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.120/2012, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Rakesh Kumar Page 8 of 20 AHLAWAT Date:

2025.02.11 15:52:58 +0530 Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any persons lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or tends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

27. Further, fact of the accused being present at the spot is also shrouded with clouds of ambiguity and cast doubt over the actual presence of the accused at the spot as no credible piece of evidence has been brought by the prosecution, rendering the version of the prosecution unworthy of credit and giving rise to the suspicion that the accused person has been falsely implicated in the present case.

28. Now in the present case, as the presence of accused at the spot is under a shadow of cloud and nothing has been brought on record to show that accused was having explosive, therefore, without any direct evidence, nothing has been brought by the prosecution to show that accused kept the explosive substance without taking due caution so rashly and negligently. Although the accused had not led any defence evidence. However, primary duty is of the prosecution to establish the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Based upon the above, the prosecution failed to prove that the subject property i.e. explosive were found from the possession of accused. Accordingly, offence u/S 9B of Explosive Act is not made out.

2025.02.11 15:53:56 +0530 Explosive Act beyond reasonable doubt, thus, entitling the accused person to benefit of doubt and acquittal.

36. Accordingly, this court hereby accords the benefit of doubt to the accused for the offences under Section 188/286 IPC and Section 9B of The Explosives Act, 1884 and holds the accused not guilty of commission of the said offence. Accused Rakesh Kumar is thus, acquitted of the offences under Sections 188/286 IPC and Section 9B of The Explosives Act, 1884.