Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

PW9 ACP (Dr.) Rakesh Bansal: This witness has proved his complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C. for prosecuting both the accused persons in respect FIR No. 123/04; U/s 186/353/307/411/34 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act; & FIR No. 124/04; 25/27 Arms Act; P.S. Narela D.O.D.: 28.08.2014 of offence U/s 186 IPC as Ex.PW9/A. During cross examination, he denied the suggestion that complaint Ex.PW9/A was given by him in a mechanical manner and without actually going through the records of the case.

In case FIR No. 123/04, both the accused persons have been charged with offences U/s 186/353/307/34 IPC and Section 25/27 Arms Act. In both the cases, consolidated charge U/s 186/353/307/34 IPC & Sec. 25/27 Arms Act has been framed against both the accused persons.
It is needless to mention here that in order to bring home the charge in respect of offence U/s 186/34 IPC, the prosecution was required to prove the following ingredients:
a). That the complainant and/or any other aggrieved person was / were public servants within the meaning of section 21 IPC.

b). Said public servants were performing their official duty at the time of incident; and

c). Those public servants were obstructed or prevented from discharging their public functions by the accused. In addition thereto, there is also a requirement under the law that complaint in writing of concerned public servant or of some other public servant to whom the complainant/ victim is administratively subordinate, shall also be filed before the Court in respect of offence U/s 186 IPC as stipulated by Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. without which no cognizance can be taken by the Court After taking into consideration the material available on record and the evidence, oral as well as documentary, produced by prosecution FIR No. 123/04; U/s 186/353/307/411/34 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act; & FIR No. 124/04; 25/27 Arms Act; P.S. Narela D.O.D.: 28.08.2014 during trial, Court finds that there is no iota of doubt that PW2 to PW4 besides PW Ct. Ramesh were public servants in terms of Section 21 IPC. However, there is no cogent evidence proved on record to show that all the said four police officials were actually on official duty at the alleged date, time and place. In other words, there is no piece of evidence led by the prosecution to prove the said fact. Same can also be gathered from the testimony of PW3 Ct. Shiv Bodh Singh who deposed during cross examination that there was no written order passed on that day regarding his duty for checking the vehicles at the spot. PW3 also claimed that he did not make any entry in any register regarding his duty at the spot. In this regard, the relevant portion of the testimony of PW4 Ct. Satish is also relevant whereby he deposed during cross examination conducted on 21.11.2013 that there was no written order passed by his senior officer of his duty of checking the vehicles at anti robbery and anti snatching picket. Although, he tried to wriggle out of the same by claiming that there was an oral direction by the SHO but said explanation given by him is nothing but an afterthought story put forth by him as it needs no emphasis that whenever any police official leaves the police station for any official work, it is mandatory to make appropriate entry, which is known as 'departure entry' in relevant Roznamcha maintained for said purpose in every police station. PW2 HC Rajpal has also admitted this fact that record of picket duty is maintained. PW4 Ct. Satish admitted during cross examination that he did not make any departure entry when he had left PS Narela on that day. PW2 HC Rajpal has also admitted FIR No. 123/04; U/s 186/353/307/411/34 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act; & FIR No. 124/04; 25/27 Arms Act; P.S. Narela D.O.D.: 28.08.2014 during cross examination that there is no document available on judicial file showing that they were on picket duty on alleged date, time and place.

In the judgment reported at '1996 III AD (Delhi) 96', it has been held by our own High Court that cognizance in respect of offence U/s 186 IPC can be taken only on written complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C. The requirement of law is that there has to be properly drafted complaint within the meaning of Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. and same has been validly instituted before the Court of Law, which is not the case herein.

FIR No. 123/04; U/s 186/353/307/411/34 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act; & FIR No. 124/04; 25/27 Arms Act; P.S. Narela D.O.D.: 28.08.2014 For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, Court while agreeing with the submissions made by ld. defence counsel, is of the view that offence U/s 186/34 IPC has not been proved against either of the accused persons.