Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. It is the case of the prosecution that on 06.11.2020 HC Ajay Kumar along with HC Raj Kumar were on patrolling duty at beat No 8 and HC Raj Kumar was informed by a secret informaer that there are fire crackers in Shop No E-14, Gali No 7, Raja Puri Road. On reaching the given address they met the accused and after inspecting the shop, fire crackers were found and on being asked about the license regarding the sale of fire cracker the accused failed to produce any license. Thereafter, an FIR bearing no. 832/2020 u/s 9B of Explosive Act 1984 was registered at PS Dabri. Investigation of the case was handed over to Investigating Officer HC Raj Kumar who also filed the chargesheet.

4. Vide separate statement of the accused u/s 294 CrPC, he had admitted the genuineness of FIR. Thus, witnesses at serial no 3 was deleted from the list of witnesses.

5. During the course of the trial the prosecution examined the following witnesses:

i. HC Ajay Kumar was examined as PW 1. In his examination in chief he stated that on 06.11.2020 he was posted at PS Dabri as Constable. On that day he along with HC Raj Kumar was on patrolling duty in beat No 8 at about 8.30 pm. HC Raj Kumar was informed by a secret informer that there are fire crackers in Shop No E14, Gali No 7, Raja Puri Road. After that IO asked 4-5 persons to join the investigation, however, all persons refused by stating their personal reasons and without stating their names. Thereafter, he along with HC Raj Kumar( IO) and secret informer reached the above stated shop. After reaching there secret informer pointed towards the shop. Inside the shop they met Rakesh Bansal i.e. accused and after inspecting the shop, fire crackers were found in the shop. After that IO asked the accused about the license regarding the sale of fire crackers. Accused did not produce any license. From the atta chakki shop opposite to the alleged shop, he brought four plastic katas in which fire crackers FIR No.: 0832/2020 State versus Rakesh Bansal Page no. 2/13 were kept. Thereafter, all were sealed with the seal of RK vide seizure memo Ex PW1/A bearing his signature at point A after weighing the same from the atta chakki shop, plastic katta at S. No 1 weighed 14.3 kg, plastic katta at S No. 2 weighed 9.9 kg, plastic katta at S No. 3 weighed 8.2 kg, plastic katta at S No. 4 weighed 2.2 kg, in total 34.6 kg. IO prepared the rukka in his presence Ex PW1/B. After that IO handed over seal to him and gave him the rukka for registration of FIR. Thereafter, he went to PS and got the FIR registered, after sometime, he came back at the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to IO. IO arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex PW1/C bearing his signature at point A. IO recorded disclosure statement of the accused vide memo Ex PW1/D, bearing his signature at point A. IO released the accused on pabandinama. IO prepared site plan in his presence Ex PW1/E bearing his signature at point A. IO recorded his statement under Section 161 CRPC. He can identify the accused. (Accused is present in Court and correctly identified by the witness.) He can identify the case property if shown to him. (At this stage photographs placed in judicial file shown to the witness. The same is correctly identified by the witness. The same is Ex PW1/F (Colly). ii. In his cross examination he stated that the shop from where the 4 plastic katas were brought is near to the alleged shop. He do not remember the name of the shop from which plastic katas were brought. The statement of the owner of the shop was not recorded in his presence. He cannot tell the exact location of the aata chakki shop, however, it was opposite to the alleged shop. He reached at the spot along with the IO at 8.30 pm. They left the spot after about 1 to 1.5 hrs. Public persons were present at the spot. No notice was served to any of the public persons in his presence. There were residential houses and shops near the alleged spot. He left the spot at about 10 pm for registration of FIR and came back to the spot at FIR No.: 0832/2020 State versus Rakesh Bansal Page no. 3/13 about 11 pm. The case property was taken to the PS in E-rickshaw. All the case property was kept in white plastic katta and not in plastic bag. He do not know where the cloth with which the plastic katta was sealed was brought by the IO. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely at the instance of the IO or the case property was not recovered from the custody of the accused or the same was planted on him. iii. ASI Raj Kumar was examined as PW2. He stated that on 06.11.2020 he was posted at PS Dabri as Head Constable. On that day he along with Ct Ajay was on patrolling duty in beat No 8 at about 8.30 pm. He was informed by a secret informer that there are fire crackers in Shop No E14, Gali No 7, Raja Puri Road. After that he asked 4-5 persons to join the investigation, however, all persons refused by stating their personal reasons and without stating their names. Thereafter, he along with Ct Ajay and secret informer reached the above stated shop. After reaching there secret informer pointed towards the shop. Inside the shop they met Rakesh Bansal i.e. accused and after inspecting the shop, fire crackers were found in the shop. After that he asked the accused about the license regarding the sale of fire crackers. Accused did not produce any license. From the atta chakki shop opposite to the alleged shop, Ct Ajay brought four plastic katas in which fire crackers were kept. Thereafter, all were sealed with the seal of RK vide seizure memo Ex PW1/A bearing his signature at point B after weighing the same from the atta chakki shop, plastic katta at S. No 1 weighed 14.3 kg, plastic katta at S No. 2 weighed 9.9 kg, plastic katta at S No. 3 weighed 8.2 kg, plastic katta at S No. 4 weighed 2.2 kg, in total 34.6 kg. He prepared the rukka Ex PW1/B bearing his signature at point A. After that he handed over seal to Ct Ajay and gave Ct Ajay the rukka for registration of FIR. Thereafter, Ct Ajay went to PS and got the FIR registered, after sometime, he came back at the spot and handed over copy FIR No.: 0832/2020 State versus Rakesh Bansal Page no. 4/13 of FIR and original rukka to him. He arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex PW1/C bearing his signature at point B. He recorded disclosure statement of the accused vide memo Ex PW1/D, bearing his signature at point B. He released the accused on pabandinama Ex 2/A bearing his signature at point A and B. He prepared site plan Ex PW1/E bearing his signature at point B. He recorded statement of witnesses under Section 161 CRPC. He can identify the accused. (Accused is present in Court and correctly identified by the witness.) He can identify the case property if shown to him. (At this stage photographs placed in judicial file shown to the witness. The same is correctly identified by the witness. The same is Ex PW1/F (Colly). He got the case property destroyed with the permission of Court of Sh. Ashish Meena Ld MM, Dwarka Court vide order dated 11.11.2020 Ex PW2/B. iv. In his cross examination he stated that the shop from where the 4 plastic katta were brought is about 500 meters away from the alleged shop. Ld Counsel for the asked to question: Whether you can show on site map at which point aata chakki shop was? (At this stage, site map placed on record is shown to the witness.) He cannot tell at what point aata chakki shop was. He did not record the statement of the owner of the aata chakki shop. He reached the spot along with Ct Ajay at 8.30 Pm. He along with Ct Ajay left the spot at about 12.15 pm. Public persons were present at the spot. No notice was served to any of the public persons in his presence.

11. In order to establish charge under Section 9B of the Explosives Act, prosecution was duty bound to establish that fire crackers were recovered from the possession of accused and he was holding those fire crackers either without obtaining the prescribed license from the competent authority under the Act or in contravention of the rules made under Section 5 of the Act or in violation of the conditions on which the license was granted under the rules. The prosecution has failed to establish the same for the reasons states below. I. Non-joining of Public Witnesses