Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: 1 Judgment in C. C. No.850/PW/2019
Filed on .. 05.03.2019
Registered on .. 05.03.2019
Delivered on .. 18.12.2024
Duration .. 05Y 09M 13D
CNR No.MHMM190043312019
Exh.10
IN THE COURT METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ,
65th COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
(Presided over by Hashmi H.A.H.I.)
(Judgment as per Sec. 355 of the Cr.P.C.)
(a) The serial number of the
case;
: C.C. No.850/PW/2019
(b) The date of commission of
offence;
During the period December 2017
till 20.01.2018
(c) The name of the informant,
if any;
: Through PSO Vile Parle Police
Station (CR No.31/2018)
(d) The name of the accused
person, his parentage and
residence;
: 1. Kanchan Dilip Gharatkar –
32 yrs, Occupation : Molish
R/o.: Abewadi, Rahiwashi Sangh,
Vile Parle (E), Mumbai
2. Sadashiv Murlidhar Padmukh36
Occupation : Business
R/o.Room No.257, Dr. Ambedkar
Nagar, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai
(e) The offence complained of
or proved;
: U/Sec.381, 414 of the Indian Penal
Code
(f) The plea of the accused and
his examination, (if any);
: Accused pleaded not guilty
(g) The final order; : Accused are acquitted
h) The date of such order; : 18.12.2024
Appearance : Ld. APP. Samrat Patil for the State
Ld. Adv. Pradeep Shetty for the accused No.1
Ld. Adv. Miss. Shah for the accused No.2
-- 1 of 5 --
2 Judgment in C. C. No.850/PW/2019
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 18.12.2024)
1. Accused have been chargesheet ed for the offences
punishable U/Sec.381, 414 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”).
The prosecution case in short is as follows :
During the period from December 2017 till 20.01.2018 at
Room No.501, Ganesh Apartment, Subhash Road, Vile Parle (E),
Mumbai, accused no.1 Kanchan Dilip Gharatkar was doing the work of
masseuse to the child in the house of informant viz. Aditi Saurabh
Khedekar. During that period accused no.1 Kanchan has committed
theft of gold ornaments, Laptop and Cash total Rs.2,02,000/from the
house of informant and accused no.2 Sadashiv Padmukh has voluntarily
assisted in disposition above said property which known to be stolen
property. Thereafter, informant lodged complaint against the accused
no.1 Kanchan. On the basis of complaint Vile Parle Police station has
registered an offence bearing Crime No.31/2018. During the
investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded has statement of
witnesses, prepared spot panchanama as well as seizure panchanama.
After completion of investigation submitted chargesheet against the
accused nos. 1 and 2 u/s. 381, 414 of IPC.
2. My Learned Predecessor has framed charge against the
accused vide Exh.2 on dtd. 11.01.2021 and it read over and explained to
accused in vernacular, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to
be tried. Their defence is of total denial and false implication.
-- 2 of 5 --
3 Judgment in C. C. No.850/PW/2019
3. Since no incriminating evidence against accused, therefore
statement of accused U/sec. 313 of Criminal Procedure Code stands
dispensed with.
4. Following points arise for my determination and I have
recorded findings thereon for the reasons discussed herein after :
S.NO. POINTS FINDINGS
1 Does prosecution prove that the accused no.1
during the period from December 2017 till
20.01.2018 at Room No.501, Ganesh
apartment, Subhash Road, Vile Parle (E),
Mumbai committed theft of gold ornaments,
Laptop and Cash total Rs.2,02,000/from the
house of informant viz. Aditi Saurabh
Khedekar ?
...Not
proved
2 Does prosecution prove that on the above date,
time & place, accused no.2 voluntarily assisted
the accused no.1 in disposed off the said
property which known to be stolen property ?
...Not
proved
3 What order ? Accused are
acquitted
R E A S O N S
As to points No. 1 and 2:
5. In order to prove guilt of the accused, the prosecution has
examined only the informant i.e. P.W. No. 1 Aditi Saurabh Khedekar @
Aditi Chandrashekhar Lad at Exh.6. Thereafter, the prosecution filed
evidence closed pursis at Exh.9, therefore, evidence of prosecution
closed by passing order below Exh.1.
-- 3 of 5 --
4 Judgment in C. C. No.850/PW/2019
6. P.W. No.1 informant viz. Aditi Saurabh Khedekar @ Aditi
Chandrashekhar Lad has deposed in her chief examination stated that
on 24.01.2018 the articles were stolen from her house by lady who was
doing masseuse to her daughter aged one and half month. Therefore,
she had lodged complaint against her at Vile Parle Police Station. FIR is
at Exh. 7 but she don't know it contents. As the witness not supported
the prosecution case, Ld. A.P.P. sought the permission to crossexamine
her. During the crossexamination conducted by Ld. APP, she has
admitted that, the matter has been settled between accused Kanchan
and her outside the Court. She has received her stolen articles from the
police station. Therefore, she doesn't want to proceed with this matter
against accused Kanchan.
7. During the crossexamination by advocate for accused no. 2
she admitted that she didn't lodge complaint against accused no.2. She
also doesn't know the accused no.2 Sadashiv Padmukh.
8. It is pertinent to note that, as per the prosecution case, the
informant is not supporting to the prosecution, hence, nothing
incriminating evidence came on record against the accused. It is also
pertinent to note that it appears from the evidence of prosecution that
the compromise took place between informant and accused no.1
Kanchan. Moreover, the prosecution not brought on any evidence
against accused no.2, therefore, the prosecution has not examined
further evidence in this matter. Considering the facts and circumstances,
I come to the conclusion that prosecution has not proved the case
against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, I answered
point Nos.1 and 2 in the negative and for answering point No.3, I pass
following order :
-- 4 of 5 --
5 Judgment in C. C. No.850/PW/2019
ORDER
1) Accused viz. 1. Kanchan Dilip Gharatkar and 2. Sadashiv
Murlidhar Padmukh are acquitted vide Section 248(1) of the
Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable U/Sec. 381, 414 of the
Indian Penal Code.
2) Bail bonds of accused stands cancelled.
3) Accused are directed to furnish P.B. of Rs.15,000/ each
for appearance before the Hon'ble Appellate Court, in case
appeal is filed against the judgment of this Court vide Section
437(A) of the Cr.P.C.
4) Seized muddemal property mentioned in the chargesheet
already returned to the informant on supurtanma, therefore,
said Supurtanama stands cancelled.
5) Judgment dictated & declared in an open Court.
Date : 18.12.2024 (Hashmi H.A.H.I.)
Metropolitan Magistrate,
65th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
ask
Dictated &
typed on : 18.12.2024
Signed on : 18.12.2024
-- 5 of 5 --