IN THE COURT OF MS. [ENTITY] CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:EAST KARKARDOOMA COURT : DELHI FIR No. : 118/16 PS : Kalyan Puri u/[SECTION] [ACT] STATE VS. ATUL JUDGMENT
A Sr. No. of the case 12860/2016 B Name of the complainant Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. [ENTITY] C Name of the accused & his [ENTITY] parentage and address S/o Sh. Anil R/o 20/113-114, Kalyanpuri, Delhi. D Offence Complained of U/[SECTION] [ACT] E Date of commission of 05.03.2016 offence. F Date of Institution 21.04.2016 G Offence Charged U/[SECTION] [ACT] H Plea of the accused Not Guilty I Order Reserved on 16.10.2018 J Date of Pronouncement 16.10.2018 K Final Order Acuqitted for offences u/[SECTION] [ACT]
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION PROSECUTION'S CASE 1 The story of the prosecution is that on 05.03.2016, at about 10:30 pm at Mother Dairy, Block No. 9, Khichiripur, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Kalyanpuri, accused [ENTITY] along with two other persons namely [ENTITY] (absconding) and one juvenile in furtherance of their common intetion used criminal force on the person of complainant [ENTITY] while snatching his mobile which he was holding in his hand and thereby committed theft of the same. On 12.03.2016, the said mobile phone was got recovered by accused [ENTITY] from his bed lying on the first floor of his house i.e. 20/113- 114, Kalyanpuri, Delhi. Thereby he is alleged to have committed offence u/[SECTION] [ACT] and u/[SECTION] [ACT].
CHARGE 2 After investigation, charge-sheet under [SECTION] [ACT] was filed on 21.04.2016 u/[SECTION] [ACT].
3 On the basis of the charge-sheet and after compliance of [SECTION] [ACT], a charge for the offence punishable under [SECTION] [ACT] and u/[SECTION] [ACT] was framed against accused [ENTITY] and read out to the said accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on 27.06.2016. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE 4 To bring home the guilt against the accused prosecution has cited 7 witnesses in all.
5 Summons were sent to the complainant [ENTITY] but they were received back with the report that he is not traceable. Despite repeated summoning and sending the proccess through DCP, East, complainant/victim [ENTITY] could not be traced. He was accordingly,droppedfromthelistofwitnessesvideorderdated25.09.2018. 6 Intheabsenceofexaminationofcomplainant/victimSubhashKumar,there isnowitnesswhocanprovethefactumofsnatchingandtheftofmobile phoneofthecomplainanton05.03.2016. Alltheotherwitnessesarethe police witnesses including witnesses to the recovery of the said mobile phoneallegedlyfromthepossessionoftheaccused.Eveniftheirevidence isrecordedtheycanmerelyprovetherecoveryofthesaidmobilephone from the accused persons on 12.03.16, however, in the absence ofany evidenceregardingtheftofthesaidmobilephoneon05.03.16, thesaid mobilephonecannotbetermedasastolenpropertyinthepresentcase. 7 It has been argued by Ld. APP for the State that IO may be summoned for his evidence to prove the offence alleged against the accused. 8 I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made however to my mind no purpose will be served by examining the IO or any other police witness as even if by examination of these witnesses the recovery of the said mobile phone from the accused is proved, it would not be sufficient for punishing him for the offence u/[SECTION] [ACT] until and unless the theft of the said mobile phone is actually proved. The factum of theft cannot be proved in the absence of the deposition of the complainant namely [ENTITY] who is untraceable and is already dropped from the list of witnesses. Moreover, there is no other eye witness to the alleged incident of the theft and snatching that had occurred with the complainant [ENTITY] on 05.03.2016.
9 In these circumstances the offences u/[SECTION] [ACT] as charged against the accused cannot be proved in the absence of testimony of complainant [ENTITY] who is untraceable. Hence, recording the statement of remaining witnesses would be a futile exercise and wastage of judicial time, resources and money.
10 In the opinion of the court, this is a fit case to close PE and acquit the accused so as to protect his right of speedy justice as incorporated in [SECTION] of [ACT].
In "[PRECEDENT] ( Coram : 7 [ENTITY], C.J.I., [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], Mrs. [ENTITY], [ENTITY], JJ.) the Honorable Supreme Court while commenting upon the right to speedy justice observed:
"22. Is it at all necessary to have limitation bars terminating trials and proceedings? Is there no effective mechanism available for achieving the same end? The [ACT], as it stands, incorporates a few provisions to which resort can be had for protecting the interest of the accused and saving him from unreasonable prolixity or laxity at the trial amounting to oppression. The [ACT] Bench in A.R. Antulay's case referred to such power, vesting in the High Court (vide paras 62 and 65 of its judgment) and held that it was clear that even apart from [SECTION], the Courts can take care of undue or inordinate delays in criminal matters or proceedings if they remain pending for too long and putting to an end, by making appropriate orders, to further proceedings when they are found to be oppressive and unwarranted." (emphasis supplied) "30 In conclusion we hold:-
(5) The Criminal Courts should exercise their available powers, such as those under [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] of [ACT] to effectuate the right to speedy trial. A watchful and diligent trial Judge can prove to be better protector of such right than any guidelines. In appropriate cases jurisdiction of High Court under [SECTION] of [ACT] and [SECTION] and [SECTION] of [ACT] can be invoked seeking appropriate relief or suitable directions".
11 Accordingly, PE stands closed, SA dispensed with and accused namely [ENTITY] is acquitted of offences charged against him.
12 File be consigned to Record Room. Digitally signed by [ENTITY] Location: East District ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT Karkardooma Courts ON 16.10.2018 [ENTITY] Date: 2018.10.16 16:36:26 +0530 ([ENTITY]) CMM (EAST)/KKD/ 16.10.2018
Certified that this judgement contains 4 pages and each page bears my signatures.
([ENTITY]) CMM (EAST)/KKD/16.10.2018