Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: 1 C.C.No.828/PW/2018
Received on : 15/03/2018
Registered on : 20/03/2018
Decided on : 16/04/2022
Duration : 04 Y. 01 M. 01 D.
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
44TH COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
(PRESIDED OVER BY A. I. SHAIKH)
(JUDGMENT U/SEC. 355 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE)
C.N.R NO.MHMM190036962018
Exh.No.
(a) The serial No. of the case; : C.C.No.828/PW/2018
(b) The date of commission of
the offence;
: 15.06.2016
(c) The name of the complainant
(if any);
: The State (Versova Police
Station in C. R. No. 214/2016).
(d) The name of the accused
person and his parentage and
residence;
: 1] Sameer Firoz Khan,
Age 23 Years
Occupation Service,
R/o. Room No.10,
Sabera Society,
Veera Desai Road,
Andheri (W), Mumbai.
2] Mehboob Chinomiya
Shaikh,
Age – 24 Years,
Occupation – Service,
R/o.Room No.368,
Hanuman Chawl,
Veera Desai Road,
Andheri (W), Mumbai.
-- 1 of 6 --
2 C.C.No.828/PW/2018
3] Mehnuddin Abbas Qureshi,
Age – 27 Years,
Occupation – Service,
R/o.Room No.25,
Saibaba Nagar,
Veera Desai Road,
Andheri (W), Mumbai.
(e) The offence complained of
or proved ;
: Under Section 392 r/w. 34 of
the Indian Penal Code.
(f) The plea of the accused and
his examination (if any);
: The accused pleaded not guilty.
(g) The final order; : The accused no.1 to 3 are
acquitted.
(h) The date of such order; : 16/04/2022
Mr. A.M.Shah, Ld. APP for the State.
Mr. R. T. Shaikh, Advocate for accused .
J U D G M E N T
( Delivered on 16th April, 2022 )
1. The accused is prosecuted for the offences punishable
under Section 392 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. In brief, it is the case of the prosecution is that on dated
14/06/2016 at about 17.00 hrs informant taken his auto rickshaw
bearing no.MH02EF5229 for driving. He have in possession of cash
amount of Rs.2,060/ from auto fare from passenger. He has kept
Rs.160/ out of that in his pocket and remaining amount of Rs.1,900/
in the diki of rickshaw. At about 3.00 hrs at Char Bangala, Mhada,
Andheri (W), one person wearing yellow colour shirt told that he want
to go at Versova. Therefore informant taken him the Galli near Mandir
-- 2 of 6 --
3 C.C.No.828/PW/2018
Masjid, Yari Road, Versova, Andheri (W), Mumbai. He reached there
along with that one person at about 3.20 hrs. The person siting in the
rickshaw told informant to stop the rickshaw. Accordingly, he stopped
there. Another two persons came there. One of them put the knife on
the neck of informant, another person gave slapped him and first person
taken his pocket Rs.160/ and Rs.1,900/ which was taken the dici of
rickshaw and ran from the spot. Informant made call on 100 number
for help therefore van of Amboli police station came. He told police
that three persons robbed him by showing knife and taken his money.
Informant went to police station and lodged report of the incident
against all three persons.
3. On the basis of the report given by the informant, crime
No. 214/2016 came to be registered against the accused. I.O. arrested
the accused. During further investigation I.O. recorded statement of
witnesses and after completion of investigation, I.O. filed chargesheet.
4. The charge is framed against the accused persons for the
above mentioned offence. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed
to be tried. The prosecution has examined only one witness. As no
incriminating evidence came on record in the evidence of the
prosecution, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure came to be dispensed with.
5. The points for determination alongwith my findings
thereon as under :
POINTS FINDINGS
1] Does the prosecution prove that the
accused no.1 to 3 in furtherance of their
common intention taking away the cash
In the negative
-- 3 of 6 --
4 C.C.No.828/PW/2018
amount of Rs.2,060/ of the informant
Satyapal Janak Singh by showing fear of
knife ?
2] What order ? The accused no.1 to
3 are acquitted.
REASONS
AS TO POINT NOS. 1 :
6. These points are interconnected with each other, therefore,
they are taken up together for consideration and determination.
7. Satish Balaji Naik (P.W.1) deposes at Exh.4 that incident
occurred in the year 2016. At the time of incident he was attached to
Amboli police station and on duty on squad of wireless. In the morning
in between 4.00 a.m. to 4.30 a.m. he received called on wireless that
one person need help. Thereafter, they went to spot of incident Veera
Desai Road. One person came and told that he had made call for help.
He again told that three persons robbed him by showing knife and
taken his money. He also told that he has seen one of them entered
into the house which is within Amboli Police Station jurisdiction. He
has shown the said house to them. They knocked the door. One person
had opened the door. The informant has identified him. They inquired
about other two persons. He called them. The two persons are also
came there. They brought them to the police station. I.O. has recorded
his statement. During his crossexamination examination he deposed
that they are maintaining personal diary. He also entered the said
incident in his personal diary. Because of month of Ramzan door of
the house of the accused is open and all are taking Saheri.
-- 4 of 6 --
5 C.C.No.828/PW/2018
8. I have carefully gone through the record. The case is more
than 04 years old. The prosecution failed to examine informant and
other material witnesses. As per police reports informant do not reside
on the given address and he has not traceable. Lastly, the prosecution
closed its evidence. The prosecution has examined only one witness
i.e. Satish Balaji Naik (P.W.1) who is the witness. However, his
evidence is very formal in nature. He denied that they brought the
father of the accused Sameer to the police station. Accused Sameer
never called to other two persons. They never brought the accused
persons to Versova Police Station. The father of the accused had called
to all the accused in the police station where the false case was
registered against the accused persons. The prosecution failed to
produce any direct evidence against the accused. The prosecution
failed to adduce any further evidence to prove the case of prosecution.
Hence, I hold that the prosecution failed to prove guilt of the accused.
Hence, I answer point No.1 in the negative.
AS TO POINT NO.2 :
9. The prosecution failed to prove guilt of accused.
Therefore, the accused is liable to be acquitted. In the result, in answer
to Point No.2, I pass the following order.
ORDER
1 The accused 1 Sameer Firoz Khan, accused no.2 Mehboob
Chinomiya Shaikh and accused no.3 Mehnuddin Abbas
Qureshi, are acquitted of the offences punishable under
Sections 392 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide Section
248 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
-- 5 of 6 --
6 C.C.No.828/PW/2018
2 Bail bonds of the accused no.1 to 3 stands cancelled.
3 The accused no.1 to 3 to execute P.R. Bond of Rs.15,000/
(Rupees Fifteen Thousand) each vide Section 437–A of the
Code of Criminal Procedure for appearance before the higher
court, if said court issues notice to them for their appearance.
The Judgment is transcribed directly on the computer and
pronounced in open Court.
(A. I. Shaikh)
Date : 16.04.2022 Metropolitan Magistrate,
44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai
spj
Typed on : 16/04/2022
Signed on : 16/04/2022
-- 6 of 6 --