Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Ticket checking in State vs . : Om Prakash on 8 December, 2011Matching Fragments
1 The Prosecution filed a Chargesheet against the accused with the allegation that the accused on 2.2.2001 at about 11 a.m., he was found FIR No. 29/2001 STATE V/s OM PRAKASH PAGE No. 1/16 traveling in a DTC bus bearing registration no. DL1P0487 of route no. 879. When the said bus reached at Kesho Pur bus stand, the DTC ticket checking staff asked him for the bus ticket and he shown to them a fake identity card of Delhi Police. On suspicion, the police was called. The FIR was registered and investigation was undertaken against him. After the completion of the investigation, a charge sheet u/s 419/420/468/471 IPC was filed against him. 2 Vide order dated 21.04.2001, my Ld. Predecessor took cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused. After the accused had appeared in the Court, in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C, the copy of the charge sheet along with other documents were supplied to accused. 3 Later on, vide Order dated 18.05.2004 charge for offences under sections 419/420/468/471 IPC was framed by my Ld. Predecessor Sh. Rajesh Kumar Singh, the then Ld. MM to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4 In order to prove its case against the accused, the Prosecution examined five witnesses in all.
FIR No. 29/2001 STATE V/s OM PRAKASH PAGE No. 2/16 5 PW1 Phool Singh was the complainant in this case. However, a
perusal of his testimony would reveal that he has not supported the case of the prosecution in its material particulars. He deposed that on 2.2.2001, he along with PW2 Dharam Pal was checking the tickets of the passenger in bus route no. 879 and Kesho Pur Depot Manager called the police, who had apprehended one passenger without ticket. He was declared hostile by the Ld. APP for the State. In his cross examination, he could not say if he was checking the bus no. DL1P0487. He denied that near Peera Garhi, he asked the passenger about the ticket, who showed him ID card no. 305/89 of Delhi Police. He further denied that the accused told him that he was staff of Delhi Police. He further denied that he called the police on suspicion. He could not tell whether the person who had shown the forged I card was present in the Court or not. He could not admit or deny the accused as the person who had shown the forged I card. He admitted having made his statement, Ex. PW1/A but he also stated that the same was made by him at the instance of Depot Manager. He could not admit or deny, whether the I card Ex. P1 was recovered from the possession of accused. He was not cross examined by the Ld. counsel for the accused.
6 PW2 Dharam Pal also did not support the case of the FIR No. 29/2001 STATE V/s OM PRAKASH PAGE No. 3/16
prosecution. In its material particulars. He was also cross examined by Ld. APP. In his cross examination, he could not admit or deny, if they were checking tickets in bus no. DL1P0487. He also could not admit or deny, if the accused produced forged I card of Delhi Police or the I card Ex. P1 was recovered from the accused or not. However, he admitted that Phool Singh had asked the passenger to show his ticket who could not show his ticket rather had shown the I card of Delhi Police.
He could not admit or deny that accused had shown the forged ICard to the Depot Manager. He further stated that he filed the complaint because the Depot Manager had no authority to check the tickets. He could not admit or deny whether the ICard Ex. P1 was recovered from the possession of the accused. Similarly, PW2 also stated that he cannot admit or deny whether ICard Ex. P1 was recovered from the possession of the accused. In his crossexamination by the Ld. APP, he admitted that PW1 Phool Singh FIR No. 29/2001 STATE V/s OM PRAKASH PAGE No. 12/16 checked the tickets of the passengers and that such passenger shown the I Card of Delhi Police when he was produced before the Depot Manager. Since, the complainant PW1 and PW2 have not supported the case of the prosecution in its material particulars visavis the charge U/S 419 IPC is concerned, in my considered opinion, the Prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused U/S 419 IPC. Hence, I conclude that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence U/S 419 IPC. 27 Similar would be my conclusion regarding the charge U/S 420 IPC. Since, both the prosecution witnesses have not supported the case and have not identified the accused using the forged ICard, accordingly, it has not been brought on the record that accused had cheated the DTC by using the forged ICard of Delhi Police, so that he could have avoided the payment of traveling expenses to DTC. Hence, I have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case U/S 420 IPC as well against the accused.