Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

PW - 3 Sh. R. K. Tyagi, admitted that verbal instructions were given to conduct the raid. One worker disclosed the name of the user at site, but he did not remember the name of that worker. The team did not collect any material evidence to ascertain the user / occupier / owner of the premises was Wasi Akhtar.

No public person was made as a witness. The person present at site refused to receive or paste the reports at site why the said fact was not reported to the police when they were with the team. The documents of ownership / occupancy were not procured by the team. No inquiry on the aspect of occupancy of the premises was made. They have no written authority to conduct the raid at the premises. No independent person was joined at the time of inspection / seizure of case property. It was further submitted that there was no evidence on record which connect the theft with the accused. The company failed to prove the occupation of accused in the inspected premise. It was contended that company had failed to CC No:­ 28/08 Police Station:­ Darya Ganj prove its case so, accused is entitled to be acquitted in this case.

8. I have gone through the evidence adduced on record and considered the arguments of counsel for both parties.

PW - 2 and PW - 3 both admitted that several premises situated near the premises having the same municipal numbers. Company has not procured any documents which shows that CC No:­ 28/08 Police Station:­ Darya Ganj premises was used by Wasim or Wasi Akhtar. Company has noted down the name of the accused only at the instance of worker present at the spot. Company has not mentioned the name of worker, even he was not examined by the company in the court. This type of evidence tendered by witnesses can be simply termed as "Hearsay Evidence" and has no evidentary value. Reference is placed on judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Crl. L.P No. 598/2013 titled as BYPL Vs. Guddu dated 21.01.2014.

9. The company did not procure the documents pertaining to occupancy or the ownership of the inspected premises. No inquiry in this respect was conducted by the company at the time of inspection or before filing the present complaint. All the above noted facts were considered in the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in Crl. L.P.No. 598/2013 decided on 21.01.2014 titled as BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. Vs. Guddu wherein, the order of trial court was confirmed in which accused was acquitted as company failed to procure the documents of occupancy / ownership.