Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: – 1 – C.C.NO.1522/PW/2018
Received on : 11/06/2018
Registered on : 02/07/2018
Decided on : 21/03/2023
Duration : 04 Y.09 M. 10 D.
Exh. : 05
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)
(CNR NO. MHMM190068062018)
(a) The serial No. of the case; : C.C.NO.1522/PW/2018
(b) The date of commission of
the offence;
: From 04/11/2017
(c) The name of the
complainant (if any);
: The State (Amboli Police Station
in C. R. No. 400/2017).
(d) The name of the accused
persons and their parentage
and residence;
: Kamar Ahmed Mohd. Umar
Ansari,
Age 42 Yrs.
Occupation Nil,
R/o.B. R. T. Chawl, Building No.03,
Room No.01, Momin Pura,
1st Floor, Mumbai Central,
Agripada, Mumbai – 11.
(e) The offences complained of
or proved ;
: Under Sections 385, 419, 500 of
the Indian Penal Code.
(f) The plea of the accused and
their examination (if any); : The accused pleaded not guilty
(g) The final order; : The accused is acquitted.
(h) The date of such order; : 21/03/2023
-- 1 of 5 --
– 2 – C.C.NO.1522/PW/2018
Ms. Seema Mokal, APP for the State.
Mr.Imam, Advocate for the accused.
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on 21/03/2023.)
The accused is prosecuted for the offence punishable under
Section 385, 419, 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. It is the case of the prosecution is that, on 03/11/2017 the
CEO of T.V. 9 channel Shri Ravi Prakash came to Mumbai for work.
When he alongwith his friend were proceeding Drinking Culture, Off
Link Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai. At that time there was gathered of
people. Therefore, he made inquiry with one of them and came to
know that accused demanding money from the manager of hotel by
showing forged ID card of TV 9 channel. He was also demanding
money to other hotels. Therefore, he called to informant and told him
this fact. He made inquiry whether the accused was working as
reporter in their channel. Informant told him that no person of this
name was working in their channel. After inquiry informant came know
that the accused was showing the forged ID card and demanding
money from the owners of hotels by saying he was the reporter of TV 9
channel and defame their channel. Hence, he lodged the report against
the accused.
3. On the basis of the report given by the informant, crime
no. 400/2017 came to be registered against the accused. During
investigation I.O. arrested the accused and recorded statement of
witnesses. After completion of investigation filed chargesheet against
-- 2 of 5 --
– 3 – C.C.NO.1522/PW/2018
the accused.
4. The charge is framed against the accused for the above
mentioned offence. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried. The prosecution has examined only one witness in this case. As
there is no incriminating evidence against the accused on record, the
statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is dispensed
with.
5. The points for determination alongwith my findings
thereon as under :
POINTS FINDINGS
1] Does the prosecution prove that the
accused put the owners of hotels in fear
of injury and showing that he was
working in T.V. 9 Channel, though he
was not working in T.V. 9 channel and
using false I.D. in order to commit
extortion?
In the negative
2] Does the prosecution prove that the
accused cheated informant by
representing himself as employee of
T.V.9 channel and thereby dishonestly
inducing making ID card of T.V.9
channel which caused damage to the
said channel?
In the negative
3] Does the prosecution prove that the
accused defamed informant by making
certain imputation concerning the said
informant by insulting him before
public by means of spoken words
intending to harm knowing to believe
that such imputation would harm the
reputation of the T.V. 9 channel of
informant?
In the negative
-- 3 of 5 --
– 4 – C.C.NO.1522/PW/2018
4] What order ? The accused is
acquitted.
R E A S O N S
AS TO POINTS NO. 1 TO 3 :
6. These points are interconnected with each other, therefore,
they are taken up together for consideration and determination.
7. The prosecution has examined only one witness i.e. Anil
Raghunath Vichare, (P.W.1) deposes at Exh.4 that in the year 2017 he
was working in Cub Hotel. The person Ansari made complaint that
illegal Hookah going on till the morning in his hotel. He demanded
Rs.50,000/ otherwise he will close his hotel. He told the said fact to
his owner. His owner filed complaint. He did not know whereabouts of
his owner and now the hotel was also closed. Police had recorded his
statement.
8. During his crossexamination he denied that the accused
demanded Rs.50,000/ from him. He further denied that they running
the illegal Hookah.
9. I have gone through the record. Though sufficient
opportunity were given to the prosecution, they failed to examine
informant and other witnesses. As per police report the informant is
not traceable as he is shifted at Andra Pradesh and other witnesses do
not reside on the given addresses and they are not traceable. No any
incriminating evidence came on record against the accused during
evidence of the witness examined. The prosecution has examined only
one witness in this case. (P.W.1) Anil Raghunath Vichare. His evidence
-- 4 of 5 --
– 5 – C.C.NO.1522/PW/2018
is formal in nature. The prosecution failed to prove the charges levelled
against the accused. Hence, I answer Points No. 1 to 3 in the negative.
AS TO POINT NO.4:
10. The prosecution failed to prove guilt of the accused.
Therefore, the accused is liable to be acquitted. In the result, in answer
to Point No.4, I pass the following order.
ORDER
1 The accused Kamar Ahmed Mohd. Umar Ansari is acquitted of
the offence punishable under Sections 385, 419, 500 of the
Indian Penal Code vide Section 248 (1) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
2 Bail bond of the accused stand cancelled.
3 The accused to execute P.R. Bond of Rs.15,000/ (Rupees
Fifteen Thousand Only) vide Section 437–A of the Code of
Criminal Procedure for appearance before the higher court, if
said court issues notice to him for his appearance in the matter
in which present judgment is challenged, if any.
The Judgment is transcribed directly on the computer and
pronounced in open Court.
Mumbai ( A. I. Shaikh )
Metropolitan Magistrate,
Date: 21/03/2023 44 th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
spj
Typed on: 21/03/2023
Signed on: 21/03/2023
-- 5 of 5 --