Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: Judgment 1 C. C. No. 2889/PW/2018
C/S filed on : 23/10/2018
Registered on : 23/10/2018
Decided on : 10/06/2026
Duration : 07 Y 07 M 18 D
Exh. 10.
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (F.C.)
10TH COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
(PRESIDED OVER BY S.G.AGRAWAL)
C. C. No. 2889/PW/2018
(C.R.No. 150/2018)
(C.N.R.No. MHMM19-010941-2018)
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Juhu Police Station, Mumbai. ……… Informant.
V/s.
Ajay Rajesh Tambolkar,
Age : 34 Yrs.
R/o. Old Police Line, 72/03,
Miskita Compound, B.P.Road,
Vileparle (W), Mumbai-56 ………. Accused.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ld. APP for State : Shri. Shaikh
The Ld. Advocate for accused : Shri. Namey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART-B
Date of Offence 31/03/2018
-- 1 of 7 --
Judgment 2 C. C. No. 2889/PW/2018
Date of FIR 31/03/2018
Date of Charge-sheet 23/10/2018
Date of Framing Charge 22/03/2024
Date of commencement of evidence 17/12/2024
Date of which Judgment is reserved 10/06/2026
Date of Judgment 10/06/2026
Date of the Sentencing Order, if any. ---
Accused Details
Sr.
No
.
Name of
Accused
Date of
Arrest
Date of
Release on
Bail
Offence
charged
with
Whether
acquitted
or
convicted
Sente
nce
Impos
ed
Period of
Detention
Undergon
e during
Trial for
purpose
of Section
428
Cr.P.C.
1 Ajay Rajesh
Tambolkar
16/04/2018 16/04/2018 S. 431 of
IPC and s.
102 r/w
117 of
M.P.Act
Acquitted ----- -----
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on 10/06/2026)
Accused is prosecuted for the offences punishable under
Sections 431 of I.P.C. and Section 102 r/w 117 of M.P.Act.
Facts of the prosecution case in short are as under :
2. FIR No. 150/2018 was registered with police station Juhu
against accused on the report of informant in respect of committing
mischief by erecting mandap illegally without taking prior permission of
-- 2 of 7 --
Judgment 3 C. C. No. 2889/PW/2018
the BMC and reduced safety of the road for traveling. PSI Dhanraj
Dongare has concluded investigation by presenting charge-sheeted
before the Court.
3. The accused has pleaded innocence upon the charge read
over and explained to him and trial commenced. The prosecution
adduced evidence of two witnesses i.e. informant Kunal Suresh Mundle
(PW1) and I.O. API Dhanraj Dongare (PW2). The statement of accused
u/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded wherein he had stuck to his defence of
total denial and false implication in this case.
4. Heard the Ld. APP for the State. Perused the oral and
documentary evidence brought on record.
5. On the basis of evidence of witnesses examined by the
prosecution and argument submitted by the Ld. APP for State, following
points for determination arose for my consideration. I have recorded my
findings to them along with my findings thereon as under :-
Sr.No. POINTS FINDINGS
1] Does the prosecution prove that on
31/03/2018 in between 11.45 hours to 16.00
hours at D.J.Road, Near Hanuman Mandir,
Mumbai, accused committed mischief by
erecting mandap illegally without taking prior
permission of the BMC and reduced safety of
the road for traveling ?
No
-- 3 of 7 --
Judgment 4 C. C. No. 2889/PW/2018
2] Does the prosecution prove that on abovesaid
period, time and place accused caused
obstruction on road or public places which is
prohibited ?
No
3] What order ? Accused is
acquitted
REASONS
AS TO POINT NOS. 1 AND 2 :-
6. The prosecution is required to prove that accused
committed mischief by illegally erecting mandap without taking prior
permission of the BMC and compromised with the safety by causing
obstruction on road which is a public place. To prove the same the
prosecution has examined informant Kunal Suresh Mundle (PW1). He
has stated that while he was assigned with duty to take action against
unauthorized construction on footpaths and roads, he received a
complaint on 31/03/2018 from Heena Shroff about unauthorized
structure of Mandap raised on D.J. Road, near Hanuman Mandir, Vile
Parle (W), Mumbai. He further stated that he alongwith contractor went
on the spot. He further stated that upon inquiry, he came to know that
10x15 ft. construction was erected by Shivshakti Mitra Mandal of which
accused was President and said construction was causing obstruction to
the persons passing on the road and road was damaged. He further
stated that they snapped eight photographs and lodged report at Exh.6.
During his cross examination he admitted that he has not submitted
details of call received from Heena Shroff.
-- 4 of 7 --
Judgment 5 C. C. No. 2889/PW/2018
7. Prosecution further recorded testimony of investigating
officer. He has given account of his investigation which includes
recording of statement of witnesses, prepared spot panchanama
(Exh.8), collected photographs of spot of incident produced by
informant vide (Article-A) and arrested the accused. On completion of
his investigation, he filed charge-sheet against accused.
8. The spot panchnama has not been proved by the
prosecution. It has not examined panch witness to the spot
panchanama. Therefore, the spot panchanama cannot be said to be duly
proved. The informant states that mandap measuring 10X15 was
erected on the road. However, there the same cannot be said to be
proved through sole testimony of informant and the IO.
9. The prosecution neither examined Heena Shroff nor she
was cited as witness by the IO. Even the photographs allegedly taken by
the informant were not proved by the prosecution. The IO states that
the informant snapped the photographs but, the informant has not
proved the same. Thus, the prosecution has withheld best evidence with
itself regarding alleged obstruction by raising a mandap on the public
road. Further, the IO admitted in his cross examination that he did not
made investigation about the names of office barers of Shivshakti
Mandal. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the proximity of
present accused with the alleged crime for which the accused is
charged. In absence of any material to show that there was any mandap
on the road and that the accused was anywhere responsible for the
erection of alleged mandap, he was not required to take any permission
from BMC. In such circumstances, no iota of evidence to hold that the
-- 5 of 7 --
Judgment 6 C. C. No. 2889/PW/2018
accused who is charged in this proceeding has committed mischief by
illegally erecting mandap without taking prior permission of the BMC
and reduced safety of the road for traveling and thereby caused
obstruction on road or public place. Thus, the prosecution has failed to
establish the ingredients of the offence p/u/s. 431 of the I.P.C. and
Section 102 r/w 117 of M.P.Act. Therefore, I answer point No. 1 and 2
in the negative.
AS TO POINT NO. 3 :
10. The prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the accused.
Therefore, the accused is entitled to be acquitted. In the result, in
answer to point No.3, I pass the following order.
ORDER
1 Accused Ajay Rajesh Tambolkar is acquitted of the offence
punishable under Sections 431 of the Indian Penal Code and Section
102 r/w 117 of M.P.Act vide Section 248 (1) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
2 Bail bond of the accused stands cancelled and he be set at liberty.
3 Accused shall furnish bond of Rs.10,000/- under Section
437(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Mumbai.
Date :- 10/06/2026.
Dictated on : 10/06/2026.
Transcribed on : 10/06/2026.
Signed on : 10/06/2026.
(S.G.Agrawal)
Judicial Magistrate First Class,
10th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 6 of 7 --
Judgment 7 C. C. No. 2889/PW/2018
PART-C
LIST OF PROSECUTION/ DEFENCE/ COURT WITNESSES
A. Prosecution :
RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE
1 Kunal Suresh Mundle Informant
2 PSI Dhanraj Mahadev Dongare Investigating Officer
B. Defence Witnesses, if any :
RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE
-- NIL --
C. Court Witnesses, if any :
RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE
-- NIL --
LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT EXHIBITS
A. Prosecution :
S.N Exh. No. Description
1 Exh.6 FIR
2 Exh.8 Spot panchanama
B. Defence :
Sr.No. Exh. No. Description
1 Nil Nil
C. Court Exhibits :
Sr.No. Exh. No. Description
1 Nil Nil
D. Material Objects :
Sr.No. Exh. No. Description
1 -- Nil
Mumbai. (S.G.Agrawal)
Date :- 10/06/2026. Judicial Magistrate First Class,
10th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 7 of 7 --