Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. DW­1 Shri Manoj Kumar was produced by the accused and he deposed that he knew accused Amit Prasad since last 6­7 years and accused was doing business of artificial, gold and silver jewellery items. DW­1 further deposed that accused was State level shooter since last 10­12 years and he also provided shooting for upcoming shooters. DW­1 deposed that he first met accused Amit Prasad in the year 2006­07 and he was residing at House No. 137­A, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi at that time and in year 2008­09 accused shifted to P­10, Green Park Extn., and since then he is residing at said premises with his family. PW­3 deposed that as per his knowledge, accused Amit Prasad never resided at House No. 183­A, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi nor he was the owner, occupier or used of the said house.

16. DW­2 Shri Kapil Singh Chaprana also produced on behalf of accused, deposed that he knew accused Amit Kumar Prasad since last 14­15 years. DW­2 deposed that accused Amit Kumar Prasad was residing at 137­A, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi since year 2001­02 and he was residing on the said address in the year 2008 and that thereafter accused shifted to P­10, Green Park Extn., New Delhi and he was still residing at the said address. DW­2 deposed that accused was never user, owner or occupier of the property bearing no. 183­A, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi and that accused never had any connection with the said property. BSES Vs. Amit Prasad, CC No. 452/08 Page 14 of page 32 DW­2 further deposed that accused was doing business of artificial jewellery at Arjun Nagar, where he had been selling artificial as well as some original jewellery and that accused was State level pistol shooter and had owned several shooters.

17. In his cross examination on behalf of complainant company, DW­2 replied that he was not summoned witness and that had come to court at the instance of accused. DW­2 answered that he was informed that present case pertained to theft of electricity. DW­2 replied that he used to visit the house of accused i.e. once or twice in a year on the said two addresses as deposed by him i.e. at Arjun Nagar and Green Park Extn. DW­1 did not remember the name of the father of the accused and that accused had not shared with him as to how many properties accused had purchased in Delhi or that from how many sources accused was earning his livelihood and money. DW­2 could not say as to whether house no. 183­A, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi belonged to father of the accused and whether the accused and his father were using the same. DW­2 did not know as to whether accused was doing anything except the said training given by him to upcoming shooters and said business BSES Vs. Amit Prasad, CC No. 452/08 Page 15 of page 32 of artificial jewellery and he had no knowledge as to whether accused was raising construction at the premises in question on the date of inspection.

39. DW­1 and DW­2 have deposed that accused Amit Prasad was residing at house no. 137­A, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi and later on he shifted to premises no. P­10, Green Park Extn., New BSES Vs. Amit Prasad, CC No. 452/08 Page 30 of page 32 Delhi and he never resided at house no. 183­A, Arjun Nagar, new Delhi nor he was the owner, occupier or user of the said house and that the accused was dealing in artificial jewellery as his main profession and he was a national and State level pistol shooter. However, in their respective cross examinations they showed their ignorance as to whether accused or his father were engaged in construction business and they have no knowledge as to whether the construction work was carried out by the accused in the premises in question or not. DW­2 even could not tell if house no. 183­A, Arjun Nagar, belonged to the father of the accused or that the father of the accused and the accused, both were using the same. He had no knowledge if on the date of inspection, the accused was making construction at the said premises in question or that in the said process he was committing theft of electricity.