Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: Judgment ..1.. C.C. No.659/PW/2018
Exh.
Received on : 23.04.2018
Decided on : 12.10.2018
Duration : 00 05 18
Y M D
CNR MHMM18005331 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.CHIEF METROPOITAN MAGISTRATE,
9TH COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI
JUDGMENT U/SEC. 355 OF THE CR. P. C.
(a) Serial number of the case : 659/PW/2018
(b) Date of commission of the offence. : 03.01.2018
(c) Name of the complainant, if any, : The State (Khar Police
Station, C.R.No.10/2018)
(d) Name of the accused person, his
parentage and residence
: Sameer Salim Shaikh, 29
yrs, R/at : Gulli No. 8, Zakir
Hussain Nagar, Govandi,
Mumbai.
(e) Offence complained of or proved. : U/Sections 379 of IPC
(f) Plea of the accused person and
his examination, if any
: Accused pleaded not guilty
g) Final order : Accused is acquitted
(h) Date of order : 12/10/2018
ADVOCATES:
For the State : Shri. Nerlikar , A.P. P.
For accused : Shri Patil
-- 1 of 3 --
Judgment ..2.. C.C. No.659/PW/2018
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on 12th October, 2018)
1. Accused is prosecuted for the offence punishable U/Sec. 379
of IPC.
2. In support of case, prosecution examined in all three
witnesses namely informantVinod Hajarilal Vaishya (P.W.1) at Exh.5,
panch Krishna Hari Gobare (P.W.2) at Exh. 7 and Investigating Officer
Pandurang Babaso Lonkar (P.W. 3) at Exh. 10. Prosecution also relied
on report lodged by informant (P.W.1) at Exh.6, Memorandum and
seizure panchanama Exhs. 08 and 09.
3. I have heard both sides at length. Now, I appreciate oral and
documentary evidence available on record.
4. Evidence of complainant Vinod (P.W.1), goes to show that on
the day of incident he parked his auto rickshaw in the parking area at
Hasnabad Lane, Simran Plaza, Khar (W) and on the next day when he
came at the parking place, he found that his auto rickshaw was
missing. Therefore, he lodged report of theft of auto rickshaw as per
Exh.6. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence prosecution has
proved theft of autorickshaw.
5. Now, it has to see whether stolen autorickshaw was recovered
from the possession of accused. In this regard, evidence of panch
witnessKrishna (P.W.2) and Investigating Officer Pandurang (P.W.3)
goes to show that as per confessional statement of accused bullet was
recovered. However, evidence of Krishna (P.W.2) discloses that
-- 2 of 3 --
Judgment ..3.. C.C. No.659/PW/2018
autorickshaw was already seized by Govandi Police Station. No witness
from Govandi Police Station has been examined by the prosecution to
prove recovery of autorickshaw from the possession of accused. The
evidence of Krishna (P.W.2) and Pandurang (P.W.3) is insufficient to
prove recovery of stolen autorickshaw from the possession of accused.
In short, prosecution miserably failed to prove seizure of autorickshaw
at the instance of accused. In the result, accused is entitled for acquittal
by following order :
ORDER
i] Accused Sameer Salim Shaikh is acquitted of the offence
punishable U/Secs. 379 of IPC of as per section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
ii] The accused shall submit fresh bail bonds as per Sec.437 (A) of
Cr. P. C.
iii] The accused is in jail. He be released forthwith if not required
in any other case. Inform the jailor accordingly.
iv] Seized muddemal property i.e. Autorickshaw is already
returned to the informant on supurtnama, therefore, supurtnama stands
cancelled.
v] Pronounced in open court.
Sd/
(S. K. Mungilwar)
Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
9th Court, Bandra, Mumbai
Dictated on : 12.10.2018
Transcribed on : 12.10.2018
Signed on : 12.10.2018
lsb/
-- 3 of 3 --