Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: Judgment 1 C. C. No. 1766/PS/2018.
C/S filed on : 18/06/2018
Registered on : 18/06/2018
Decided on : 14/05/2025
Duration : 06 Y 10 M 26 D
Exh. 15.
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (F.C.)
10TH COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
(PRESIDED OVER BY R. M. SHAIKH)
C. C. No. 1766/PS/2018 (C.R.No.08/2017)
(C.N.R.No. MHMM19-007124-2018)
J U D G M E N T
(u/Sec. 355 of Cr.P.C.)
(a) The serial number of the case. : C. C. No. 1766/PS/2018.
(b) The date of the commission of
the offence.
: On 16/02/2017
(c) The name of the Informant. : The State ( Juhu Police Station
in C. R. No. 08/2017)
(d) The name of the accused
person and their parentage
and residence;
: Krishnadev Ramnivas Pandey
Age : 62 years,
R/o Kandiwali (East), Mumbai.
(e) The offence complained of : Under Section 4 r/w 20 of the
Private Security Act.
(f) The plea of the accused and
their examination.
: Accused pleaded not guilty.
(g) The final order : Accused is acquitted.
(h) The date of such order : 14/05/2025
(i) Brief statement of reasons : As recorded herein below.
-- 1 of 5 --
Judgment 2 C. C. No. 1766/PS/2018.
Assistant Public Prosecutor : Shri. N.N. Sapkale.
Advocate for the accused : Shri. Rangnekar.
JUDGMENT
1. The accused is facing trial for the offences punishable
under Sections 4 r/w 20 of the Private Security Act.
2. In order to prove the guilt of accused, prosecution has
examined in all two witnesses. The evidence of PW1 Vivek Anant
Pednekar at Exh.07, PW2 Sagar Dipak Salve at Exh.10 came to be
recorded. The statement of accused u/Sec. 313 of Cr. P. C is recorded at
Exh.14 wherein he took defence that, false case is filed against him.
Heard, Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Advocate for the accused. Perused
the oral and documentary evidence brought on record.
3. In this back ground PW1 Vivek Anant Pednekar deposed
that, on 13/12/2017 he was on duty of Anti Terrorist Cell (ATC) and
checking SIM cards and unauthorized hotels and restaurants. One secret
information was received that one person was providing security guard
without license at Pinacle Hospital. On inquiry with one security guard
about his owner, he informed the name of owner as Krishnadev Pandey
i.e. accused. On inquiry with the accused about providing security guard
and having license the accused informed that, the accused was not
having any valid license. The accused was providing security guards
without any license. The accused had provided 9 guards at Juhu and
F.I.R. was registered and he proved FIR at Exh.8.
-- 2 of 5 --
Judgment 3 C. C. No. 1766/PS/2018.
4. During cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused,
it is brought on record that, he has not made any entry in his personal
diary. He has not inquired to the Pinacle Hospital about engaging any
guard. He has recorded statement of accused on the date of incident.
The rest of the cross is that of denial.
5. The next witness is examined by the prosecution PW2 IO
PSI Sagar Salve deposed that, on 13.02.2017 he was on duty in ATS
Squad and while doing patrolling duty, he visited Pinacle Hospital, Vile
Parle(W), Mumbai. That time one security guard Jamaluddin Siddiqui
was working in the said hospital as Security Guard and the said security
guard was engaged in the said hospital by Durga Security Agency and
the owner of said agency was Krushnadev Pandey i.e. accused. The
accused was called in Juhu Police Station and asked about having valid
license for running security agency, however the accused was not having
valid license for running security agency. The accused employed 8
security guards at different places. Thereafter N.C. was registered vide
No.358/2017 against accused vide Exh.1 and after carrying
investigation F.I.R. was registered against the accused. During
investigation he arrested the accused and filed charge-sheet against the
accused.
6. During his cross examination conducted on behalf of the
accused, it is brought on record that, after obtaining permission from
the Court he has recorded statement of informant. The statement of
informant was recorded on 26/07/2016 and the date of incident was
13/02/2017. There is typing mistake on the date of the statement of the
informant. He has not recorded statement of any hospital
-- 3 of 5 --
Judgment 4 C. C. No. 1766/PS/2018.
administration or authority in respect of security guard engaged by
them. Further he deposed that, he has not recorded statement of
security guard present in the Pinacal Hospital namely Jamaluddin
Siddiqui.
7. Now at this stage on perusal of entire evidence adduced by
the prosecution, it appears that, the prosecution has relied upon only
two witnesses PW1 and PW2 who are the police persons and it is the
case of prosecution that, the accused who is owner of security agency
namely Durga Enterprises and engaged 9 security guards without any
license from competent authority. On this point the prosecution has not
adduced any documentary evidence to prove that, the present accused
is the owner of said security agency namely Durga Enterprises.
8. Moreover the investigation officer PW2 has also not
collected any document to show that, the said person Jamaluddin
Siddique was engaged as security guard by Durga Enterprises and he is
neither cited as witness nor examined by the prosecution in order to
corroborate the testimony of PW1 and PW2. There is lacuna on the part
of investigation officer to make inquiry to the hospital administration of
Pinacle hospital or to record the statement of any authorized person
from the said hospital administration. Moreover the name of other 9
guards who were alleged to have been illegally engaged by accused at
different spots in contravention to the provisions of Private Security
Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 is also satisfactorily brought on record.
9. Therefore, considering all these facts, it appears that, the
evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the guilt
of accused for the offence p/u/s. 279, 338, 304-A of IPC beyond all
-- 4 of 5 --
Judgment 5 C. C. No. 1766/PS/2018.
reasonable doubt. As such the accused is entitled to be acquitted. In the
result I proceed to pass following order:
ORDER
i Accused Krishnadev Ramnivas Pandey is
acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 4
r/w 20 of Private Security Act, 2005 vide section
255 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
ii Bail bonds of the accused stands cancelled.
iii The accused shall furnish bond of Rs.10,000/-
under section 437(A) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
(R. M. Shaikh)
Judicial Magistrate (F.C.)
Date: 14/05/2025. 10th Court, Andheri, Mumbai. Dictated on
: 19/10/2023
Dictated on : 14/05/2025.
Transcribed on : 14/05/2025.
Signed on : 14/05/2025.
-- 5 of 5 --